L4- 


UC-NRLF 


$B  sfiT  im 


League  to 
Enforce  Peace 

AMERICAN  BRANCH 

WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT 

PRESIDENT 


GIFT  or 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

AMERICAN  BRANCH 


League  to  Enforce 
Peace 

AMERICAN  BRANCH 


Independence  Hall  Conference  held 
in  the  City  of  Philadelphia,  Bunker 
Hill  Day  (June  17th),  191 5,  together 
with  the  speeches  made  at  a  public 
banquet  in  the  Bellevue- Stratford 
Hotel  on  the  preceding  evening. 


PRINTED   BY  THE 

LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 
507   Fifth  Avenue 

NEW   YORK   CITY 


< 


v^At  n  ^^AA^'^yyLudjLA. * 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


Officers  and  Committees  of  the  Conference    .  vii 

The  Call  for  the  Conference ix 

National  Provisional  Committee xi 

Warrant  From  History 3 

Platform 4 

The  History  of  the  Conference 5 

Address  of  Welcome   by  The    Hon.    Rudolph 

Blankenburg 12 

Address  by  The  Hon.  William  Howard  Taft      .  13 

Address  by  Dr.  A.  Lawrence  Lowell       ...  19 

Address  by  The  Hon.  Oscar  S.  Straus      ...  26 

Address  by  The  Hon.  George  Gray     ....  29 

Address  by  Mr.  Hamilton  Holt 32 

Address  by  The  Hon.  Theodore  Marburg     .     .  37 

Address  by  Prof.  John  Bates  Clark    ....  42 

Address  by  Mr.  Edward  A.  Filene      ....  52 

Report  of  Committee  on  Resolutions      ...  58 

Closing  Remarks  of  the  Chairman      ....  63 

Permanent  Organization 63 

Officers  and  Committees  of  the  League       .     .  65 

V 


Hi  Q^f^d 


OFFICERS  AND  COMMITTEES  OF  THE  CONFERENCE 
William  Howard  Taft.  President 


Vice  Presidents 


LYMAN  ABBOTT,  N.Y. 
EDWIN  A.  ALDERMAN,  VA. 
BERNARD  N.  BAKER,  MD. 
ALEXANDER  GRAHAM   BELL,  D.  < 
VICTOR  L.  BERGER,  WIS. 
RUDOLPH   BLANKENBURG,  PA. 
EDWARD  BOK,  PA. 
ARTHUR  J.  BROWN,  N.  Y. 
CHARLES  R.  BROWN,  CONN. 
EDWARD  O.  BROWN,  ILL. 
FRANCIS  E.CLARK,  MASS. 
R.  FULTON  CUTTING,  N.  Y. 
JOHN  H.  FINLEY,  N.  Y. 
JOHN  FRANKLIN  FORT,  N.  J. 
WILLIAM  D.  FOULKE,  IND. 
JAMES  CARDINAL  GIBBONS,  MD. 
WASHINGTON  GLADDEN,  OHIO 
GEORGE  GRAY,  DEL. 
DAVID  H.  GREER,  N.  Y. 
A.  W.  HARRIS,  ILL. 
MYRON  T.  HERRICK,  OHIO 
JOHN  GRIER  HIBBEN,  N.J. 
L.  L.  HOBBS,  N.C. 
GEORGE  C.  HOLT,  N.  Y. 
DARWIN  P.  KINGSLEY,  N.  Y. 
GEORGE  H.  LORIMER,  PA. 
EDGAR  ODELL  LOVETT,  TEXAS 
MARTIN  B.  MADDEN,  ILL. 
SAMUEL  W.  MCCALL,  MASS. 
SAMUEL  B.  MCCORMICK,  PA. 


JAMES  B.MCCREARY,  KY. 
VICTOR  H.  METCALF,  CALIF. 
JOHN  MITCHELL,  N.  Y. 
JOHN  BASSETT  MOORE,  N.  Y. 
CHARLES  NAGEL,  MO. 
ALTON  B.  PARKER,  N.  Y. 
GEORGE  A.  PLIMPTON,  N.  Y. 
GEORGE  H.  PROUTY,  VT. 
JACOB  H.  SCHIFF,  N.  Y. 
JOHN  C.  SHAFFER,  ILL. 
ROBERT  SHARP,  LA. 
ISAAC  SHARPLESS,  PA. 
JAMES  L.  SLAYDEN,  TEXAS 
WILLIAM  F.  SLOCUM,  COLO. 
DANIEL  SMILEY,  N.  Y. 
EDGAR  F.  SMITH,  PA. 
FREDERIC  H.  STRAWBRIDGE,  PA. 
JOSEPH  SWAIN,  PA. 
HARRY  ST.  GEORGE  TUCKER,  VA. 
CHARLES  R.  VanHISE,  WIS. 
EDWIN  WARFIELD,  MD. 
BENJAMIN  IDE  WHEELER,  CALIF. 
HARRY  A.  WHEELER,  ILL. 
ANDREW  D.  WHITE,  N.  Y. 
WILLIAM  ALLEN  WHITE,  KANSAS. 
GEORGE  GRAFTON  WILSON,  MASS. 
LUTHER  B.  WILSON,  N.  Y. 
OLIVER  WILSON,  ILL. 
STEPHEN  S.  WISE,  N.  Y. 
THEODORE  S.  WOOLSEY,  CONN. 


NOMINATING  COMMITTEE 

JACOB  M.  DICKINSON,  ILL.  HAMILTON  HOLT,  N.  Y. 

THOMAS  RAEBURN  WHITE,  PA. 


RESOLUTIONS  COMMITTEE 

A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL,  MASS.,  CHAIRMAN 


NEWTON  D.  BAKER,  OHIO 
JAMES  M.  BECK,  N.  Y. 
JOHN  BATES  CLARK,  N.  Y. 
JACOB  M.  DICKINSON,  ILL. 
PHILIP  H.  GADSDEN,  S.  C, 
FRANKLIN  H.  GIDDINGS,  N.  Y. 
HERBERT  S.  HOUSTON,  N.  Y. 
FREDERICK  N.  JUDSON,  MO. 


S.C.MITCHELL,  DEL. 
JOHN  BASSETT  MOORE,  N.  Y. 
CHARLES  J.  RHOADS,  PA. 
FRANK  S.  STREETER,  N.  H. 
BENJAMIN  IDE  WHEELER,  CALIF. 
THOMAS  RAEBURN  WHITE,  PA. 
GEORGE  GRAFTON  WILSON,  MASS. 


WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT,  EX-OFFICIO 

vii 


EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 

JOHN  BATES  CLARK,  N.  Y.  THEODORE  MARBURG,  MD. 

JACOB  M.  DICKINSON,  ILL.  HENRY  C.  MORRIS,  ILL. 

AUSTEN  G.  FOX,  N.  Y.  LEO  S.  ROWE,  PA. 

JOHN  HAYS  HAMMOND,  N.  Y.  WILLIAM  H.  SHORT,  N.  Y. 

HAMILTON  HOLT,  N.  Y.  JOHN  A.  STEWART,  N.  Y. 

WILLIAM  B.  HOWLAND,  N.  Y.  OSCAR  S.  STRAUS,  N.  Y. 

A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL,  MASS.  THOMAS  RAEBURN  WHITE,  PA. 

WILLIAM  HODGES  MANN,  VA. 

WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT,  EX-OFFICIO 


HONORARY  SECRETARIES 

CLIFFORD  W.  BARNES,  ILL.  GEORGE  BURNHAN,  JR.,  PA. 

SECRETARIES 

WILLIAM  H.  SHORT,  N,  Y.  LOUIS  P.  LOCHNER,  ILL. 

J.  AUGUSTUS  CADWALLADER,  PA. 


TREASURER 

HERBERT  S.  HOUSTON,  N.  Y. 


VWl 


THE  CALL  FOR  THE  CONFERENCE 


THE  NATIONAL  PROVISIONAL  COMMITTEE 

WHOSE    NAMES   APPEAR   ON    THE    FOLLOWING   PAGE 
HAVE   THE    HONOR   TO   INVITE 


TO  ATTEND  A  CONFERENCE 

WHICH   WILL    BE    HELD   IN    INDEPENDENCE   HALL,  PHILADELPHIA 

ON  THURSDAY.  THE  SEVENTEENTH  OF  JUNE 

ONE   THOUSAND,  NINE   HUNDRED   AND    FIFTEEN 

FOR  THE    PURPOSE  OF  CONSIDERING  THE  ADOPTION   OF   PROPOSALS 
FOR   A 


LEAGUE  OF  PEACE 


AND   DECIDING   UPON    STEPS   TO    BE   TAKEN   WITH   A    VIEW   TO 

OBTAINING   THE   SUPPORT   OF    PUBLIC   OPINION 

AND   OF   GOVERNMENTS 

THE  HONORABLE  WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT 

FORMER  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES 
WILL    PRESIDE 

IF   YOU    ARE    IN    SYMPATHY   WITH   THE    PURPOSES   OF   THE 

CONFERENCE    BUT    UNABLE   TO  ATTEND 

A   LETTER  CONTAINING  YOUR  SUGGESTIONS  WILL  BE  APPRECIATED 


IX 


NATIONAL  PROVISIONAL  COMMITTEE  FOR 
A  LEAGUE  OF  PEACE 


Lyman  Abbott 

Editor  The  Outlook 
Edwin  A.  Alderman 

Pres.  Univ.  Virginia 
James  B.  Angell 

Educator  and  Diplomatist 
Thomas  Willing  Balch 

Lawyer 
John  Barrett 

Director     General      Pan-American 
Union 
James  M.  Beck 

Former  Assistant  Attorney  General 
Alexander  Graham  Bell 

Scientist  and  Inventor 
Perry  Belmont 

Former    Chairman   Committee   on 
Foreign  Affairs 
George  H.  Blakeslee 

Professor  History  Clark  University 
Rudolph  Blankenburg 

Mayor  of  Philadelphia 
Gutzon  Borglum 

Sculptor 
Samuel  P.  Brooks 

President  Baylor  University 
Charles  R.  Brown 

Dean  Yale  Divinity  School 
Elmer  E.  Brown 

Chancellor  New  York  University 
Henry  A.  Buchtel 

Ex-Governor  of  Colorado. 
George  Burnham,  Jr. 

Publicist 
Winston  Churchill 

Author 
Francis  E.  Clark 

Founder  Christian  Endeavor 
John  Bates  Clark 

Political  Economist 
Philander     P.  Claxton 

United  States  Com.  Education 
A.  T    Clearwater 

Jurist 
Frederic  R.  Coudert 

Lawyer 
Frank  Crane 

Editorial  Writer  Associated  News- 
papers 
R.  Fulton  Cutting 

Financier 
William  C.  Dennis 

Formerly  of  State  Department 
Jacob  M.  Dickinson 

Ex-Secretary  of  War 
Henry  Sturgis  Drinker 

President  Lehigh  University 
Samuel  T.  Dutton 

Educator 
William  H.  P.  Fauncb 

President  Brown  University 

WOODBRIDGE    N-    FeRRIS 

Governor  of  Michigan 
John  H.  Finley 

New  York  Commissoner  Education 
Irving  Fisher 

Political  Economist,  Yale  University 


William  Dudley  Foulke 

Former  Member  United  States 
Civil  Service  Commission 
Howard  B.  French 

Manufacturer 
James  Cardinal  Gibbons 
Franklin  H.  Giddings 

Sociologist 
Washington  Gladden 

Author,  Clergyman 
William  E.  Glasscock 

Ex-Governor  West  Virginia 
Caspar  F.  Goodrich 

Rear-admiral  U.  S.  Navy 
George  Gray 

Member  of  Hague  Court 
Herbert  S.  Hadley 

Ex-Governor  Missouri 
John  Hays  Hammond 

Mining  Engineer 
Albert  Bushnell  Hart 

Historian 
William  O.  Hart 

President  Louisiana  Historical 
Association 
Rowland  G.  Hazard 

Manufacturer 
Bayard  Henry 

Lawyer 
Myron  T.  Herrick 

Diplomatist 
John  Grier  Hibben 

President  Princeton  University 
Emil  G.  Hirsch 

Rabbi 
George  C.  Holt 

United  States  District  Judge 
Hamilton  Holt 

Editor  The  Independent 

H.    J.    HOWLAND 

Associate    Editor    The   Independent 
Wm.  B.  Howland 

President  The  Independent 
Andrew  B.  Humphrey 

Secretary    American     Peace     and 
Arbitration  League 
Charles  Cheney  Hyde 

Professor     of    International     Law, 
Northwestern  University 
J.  E.  Ingraham 

Railway  Official 
Jeremiah  W.  Jenks 

Political  Economist  New  York 
University 
Homer  H.  Johnson 

Lawyer 
David  Starr  Jordan 

Scientist  and  Educator 
Frederick  N.  Judson 

Lawyer 
Darwin  P.  Kingsley 

President  New  York  Life  Insurance 
Company 
J.  Leonard  Levy 

Rabbi 
Edgar  Odell  Lovett 

President  Rice  Institute 


NATIONAL    PROVISIONAL  COMMITTEE    FOR    A    LEAGUE   OF    PEACE 


A.  Lawrbncb  Lowbll 

President  Harvard  University 
Frederick  Lynch 

Secretary  Church  Peace  Union 
Charles  S.  Macfarland 

Secretary      Federal      Council     of 
Churches 
Theodore  Marburg 

Economist 
Samuel  W.  McCall 

Member  of  Congress 
James  B.  McCreary 

Governor  of  Kentucky 
Victor  H.  Metcalf 

Ex-Secretary  of  Navy 
John  Mitchell 

Chairman  New  York  State  Indus- 
trial Commission 
Samuel  C.  Mitchell 

President  Delaware  College 
John  Bassett  Moore 

Professor    International    Law    and 
Diplomacy,  Columbia  University 
Henry  C.  Morris 

President    Chicago    Peace     Society 
Cyrus  Northrop 

President  Emeritus,  University 
Minnesota 
Alton  B.  Parker 

Jurist 
George  A.  Plimpton 

Publisher 
George  H.  Prouty 

Ex-Governor  of  Vermont 
Odin  Roberts 

Lawyer 
Victor  Rosewater 

Editor  Omaha  Bee 
Leo  S.  Rowe 

President  American  AcademyPoliti- 
cal  and  Social  Science 
Nath.  C.  Schaeffer 

State    Superintendent    Public    In- 
struction 
Jacob  H.  Schiff 

Banker 
Isaac  N.  Seligman 

Banker 
John  C.  Shaffer 

Newspaper  Publisher 
William  A.  Shanklin 

President  Wesleyan  University 
Robert  Sharp 

President  Tulane  University 
Albert  Shaw 

Editor  Review  of  Reviews 
William  H.  Short 

Secretary    The    New    York    Peace 
Society 
James  L.  Slayden 

Member  of  Congress 


Edgar  F.  Smith 

Provost  University  of  Pa. 
John  A.  Stewart 

Chairman  Peace  Cent.  Commission 
Oscar  S.  Straus 

Member  of  Hague  Court 
Frank  S.  Streeter 

Lawyer 
Joseph  Swain 

President  Swarthmore  College 
WiLLAM  H.  Taft 

Ex-President  United  States 
Charles  T.  Tatman 

Lawyer 
John  M.  Thomas 

President  Middlebury  College 
William  Hale  Thompson 

Mayor  of  Chicago 
Charles  F.  Thwing 

President  Western  Res.  University 
James  L.  Tryon 

Director    American    Peace    Society 
Henry  St.  George  Tucker 

Lawyer 
Charles  R.  Van  Hise 

President  University  of  Wisconsin 
W.  H.  Vary 

Master  New  York  State  Grange 
Anton  C.  Weiss 

Editor  Duluth  Herald 
Benjamin  Ide  Wheeler 

President  University  of  California 
Everett  P.  Wheeler 

Lawyer 
Harry  A.  Wheeler 

Banker 
Andrew  D.  White 

Educator  and  Diplomatist 
Thomas  Raeburn  White 

Lawyer 
William  Allen  White 

Publicist 
John  M.  Whitehead 

Lawyer 
John  Sharp  Williams 

United  States  Senator 
Talcott  Williams 

Journalist 
Wardner  Williams 

President  Colorado  State  Board  of 
Peace  Commissioners 
George  G.  Wilson 

Professor    of    International     Law, 
Harvard  University 
Luther  B.  Wilson 

Bishop  M.  E.  Church 
Oliver  Wilson 

Master  National  Grange 
Stephen  S.  Wise 

Rabbi 
Theodore  S.  Woolsey 
.    International  Law,  Yale  University 


xu 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

AMERICAN  BRANCH 


WARRANT  FROM  HISTORY 

Throughout  five  thousand  years  of  recorded 
history  peace,  here  and  there  estabHshed,  has  been 
kept,  and  its  area  has  been  widened,  in  one  way  only. 
Individuals  have  combined  their  efforts  to  suppress 
violence  in  the  local  community.  Communities 
have  co-operated  to  maintain  the  authoritative 
state  and  to  preserve  peace  within  its  borders.  States 
have  formed  leagues  or  confederations,  or  have  other- 
wise co-operated,  to  establish  peace  among  them- 
selves. Always  peace  has  been  made  and  kept, 
when  made  and  kept  at  all,  by  the  superior  power 
of  superior  numbers  acting  in  unity  for  the  common 
good. 

Mindful  of  this  teaching  of  experience,  we  believe 
and  solemnly  urge  that  the  time  has  come  to  devise 
and  to  create  a  working  union  of  sovereign  nations  to 
establish  peace  among  themselves  and  to  guarantee  it 
by  all  known  and  available  sanctions  at  their  com- 
mand, to  the  end  that  civilization  may  be  conserved, 
and  the  progress  of  mankind  in  comfort,  enlighten- 
ment and  happiness  may  continue. 


PLATFORM 

It  is  desirable  for  the  United  States  to  join  a 
league  of  nations  binding  the  signatories  to  the 
following : 

First:  All  justiciable  questions  arising  between 
the  signatory  powers,  not  settled  by  negotiation, 
shall,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  treaties,  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  judical  tribunal  for  hearing  and  judg- 
ment, both  upon  the  merits  and  upon  any  issue  as 
to  its  jurisdiction  of  the  question. 

Second:  All  other  questions  arising  between 
the  signatories  and  not  settled  by  negotiation, 
shall  be  submitted  to  a  Council  of  Conciliation  for 
hearing,  consideration  and  recommendation. 

Third:  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use 
forthwith  both  their  economic  and  military  forces 
against  any  one  of  their  number  that  goes  to  war, 
or  commits  acts  of  hostility,  against  another  of  the 
signatories  before  any  question  arising  shall  be 
submitted  as  provided  in  the  foregoing. 

Fourth :  Conferences  between  the  signatory  pow- 
ers shall  be  held  from  time  to  time  to  formulate 
and  codify  rules  of  international  law,  which,  unless 
some  signatory  shall  signify  its  dissent  within  a 
stated  period,  shall  thereafter  govern  in  the  de- 
cisions of  the  Judical  Tribunal  mentioned  in 
Article  One. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  CONFERENCE 
WILLIAM   H.   SHORT,   Secretary 

An  American  statesman,  perhaps  the  leading 
authority  in  this  country  on  international  questions, 
in  conversation  with  the  writer  in  August,  1914, 
declared  it  to  be  the  present  duty  of  all  friends  of 
civilization,  clearly  to  understand  and  to  teach  the 
lessons  from  the  great  war  and  to  prepare  for  the 
ultimate  reorganization  of  world  society  on  a  basis 
which  would  prevent  for  the  future  the  mistaken 
policies  and  the  enormous  armaments  which  had  led 
to  the  present  conflict.  He  expressed  the  opinion 
that  it  would  be  possible  to  utilize  the  extraordinary 
situation  brought  about  by  the  war  to  apply  prin- 
ciples of  statecraft  which  would  start  the  world  off 
on  a  new  and  better  tack  when  the  war  was  over. 

By  the  end  of  January  of  the  present  year,  a  large 
number  of  individuals  and  groups  in  this  and  other 
countries  had  reached  the  conclusion  that  an  effect- 
ive reorganization  such  as  was  suggested  could  take 
place  only  by  the  establishment  of  a  league  of  nations 
which  should  agree  to  use  their  joint  military  forces 
as  a  police  to  discourage  aggression  and  to  keep 
the  peace. 

The  history  of  diplomatic  negotiations  at  the  close 
of  the  great  wars  of  the  past  had  made  it  clear  that 
the  wishes  of  democracies  can  have  little  weight 
at  such  times  unless  they  are  clearly  formulated  and 
those  who  cherish  them  are  organized  for  effective 
action.  This  fact  led  many  of  the  men  who  had 
reached  the  conclusion  that  the  organization  of  a 
League  of  Peace  offered  the  most  favorable  method 
5 


6    LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

for  preventing  future  wars,  to  the  opinion  that  the 
time  had  arrived  for  a  concerted  effort  to  unify 
and  focus  opinion  on  this  plan.  The  lack  of  unity 
and  the  confusion  of  mind  among  those  who  hoped 
for  better  things  at  the  close  of  the  present  war, 
seemed  to  accentuate  the  urgency  of  the  matter. 

At  the  end  of  January,  191 5,  a  series  of  confer- 
ences were  begun  at  the  Century  Association  with 
the  object  of  discovering  the  principles  on  which  a 
successful  league  to  maintain  peace  must  be  con- 
structed. The  group  was  composed  of  about  thirty 
men — professors  of  political  science  and  interna- 
tional law,  statesmen  and  students  of  public  affairs. 
Their  object  was,  first,  to  construct  a  constitution 
for  an  effective  league  and,  after  this  had  been  done, 
to  determine  what  portion  of  this  desirable  program 
ought  now  to  be  urged  upon  our  own  and  other 
Governments  as  a  realizable  project.  After  con- 
ferences extending  through  three  months,  results 
had  been  reached  on  which  they  were  substantially 
united  and  it  was  determined  to  call  a  national  con- 
ference in  Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia,  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  their  proposals  prominently  to 
the  attention  of  the  people  of  America  and  the  world. 

The  four  articles,  into  which  the  constitution  for 
the  proposed  league  had  been  cast,  were  signed  by 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty  prominent  citizens 
whose  names  are  appended  to  the  call  of  the  con- 
ference as  printed  in  this  volume,  and  invitations 
were  sent  out  to  several  hundred  men  asking  them 
to  assemble  on  June  17th  to  consider  the  wisdom 
of  the  proposals,  and,  if  they  were  approved,  to  take 
steps  to  bring  them  to  the  favorable  attention  of  a 
larger  public. 

Three  hundred  men  responded  to  the  call.  A 
banquet,  attended  by  both  ladies  and  gentlemen, 
took  place  at  the  Bellevue-Stratford  Hotel,  on  the 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE    7 

preceding  evening,  and  gave  opportunity  for  a  full 
preliminary  presentation  of  the  considerations  which 
had  led  to  the  forming  of  the  proposals  and  the  as- 
sembling of  the  conference.  The  mayor  of  Phila- 
delphia presided  and  the  addresses  were  made  by 
Messrs.  Hamilton  Holt,  George  Gray,  Oscar  S. 
Straus,  A.  Lawrence  Lowell  and  William  Howard 
Taft.  These  appear  under  proper  headings  in  the 
following  pages. 

At  half  after  ten  o'clock  on  the  next  morning, 
June  17th,  the  conference  was  called  to  order  in  the 
historic  Independence  Hall,  in  behalf  of  the  Provi- 
sional Committee,  by  Mr.  Thomas  Raeburn  White 
of  Philadelphia,  who  placed  in  nomination,  as  Presi- 
dent, the  Hon.  William  Howard  Taft.  Mr.  Taft 
was  unanimously  chosen  by  acclamation  and,  in 
an  opening  address,  referred  to  precedents  which 
justified  the  proposals  which  had  been  laid  before 
the  conference  by  the  Provisional  Committee,  also 
pointing  out  the  fact  that  the  step  which  the  Con- 
ference had  assembled  to  urge  was  not  a  very  long 
one  when  looked  at  from  the  standpoint  of  history. 

After  the  election  of  other  officers  of  the  confer- 
ence and  the  appointment  of  committees,  addresses 
were  made  by  Messrs.  Theodore  Marburg,  John 
Bates  Clark,  and  Edward  A.  Filene,  which  are 
printed  in  substance  in  this  volume. 

Article  three  of  the  proposals  laid  before  the  con- 
ference by  the  Provisional  Committee  was  as  follows: 

That  the  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  their  military 
force  to  prevent  any  one  of  their  number  from  going  to 
war,  or  committing  acts  of  hostility,  against  any  other 
of  the  signatories,  before  any  question  arising  shall  be  sub- 
mitted as  provided  in  the  foregoing. 

Mr.  Filene  in  his  address  offered  a  substitute  in  the 
following  language: 


8    LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

That  the  signatory  powers  shall  support,  by  such  con- 
certed measures,  diplomatic,  economic  and  military,  as  in 
the  judgment  of  the  majority  may  be  most  effective,  any 
one  of  their  number  that  is  attacked  without  previous  sub- 
mission of  the  dispute  to  judgment  or  conciliation,  as  pro- 
vided in  the  foregoing. 

The  amendment  was  referred,  without  debate,  to  the 
Resolutions  Committee  in  accordance  with  a  rule 
of  the  conference  previously  adopted. 

The  chairman  then  stated  that  the  articles  of  the 
League,  as  proposed  by  the  Provisional  Committee, 
would  be  referred  to  the  Resolutions  Committee 
for  deliberation  and  report  and  that  the  submission 
of  additional  resolutions  was  in  order.  Several  gen- 
tlemen were  given  the  floor  under  the  five-minute 
rule  for  the  purpose  mentioned.  Among  these  was 
Colonel  William  Dudley  Foulke  of  Indiana,  who 
moved  the  insertion  in  the  first  article  of  the  resolu- 
tions, after  the  words  "not  settled  by  negotiation," 
the  words  "and  not  otherwise  provided  for  by  the 
terms  of  the  League  itself,"  so  that  the  first  clause 
should  read: 

All  justiciable  questions  arising  between  the  signatory 
powers,  not  settled  by  negotiation,  and  not  otherwise 
provided  for  by  the  terms  of  the  League  itself,  shall  be 
submitted  to  a  judicial  tribunal  for  hearing  and  judg- 
ment both  on  the  merits  and  on  any  issue  as  to  its  juris- 
diction of  the  question. 

An  inquiry  from  the  representatives  of  the  press 
as  to  the  name  by  which  the  conference  desired 
to  have  the  permanent  organization  called  was  also 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Resolutions.  Several 
additional  resolutions  were  presented  and  referred. 
At  one  o'clock  the  conference  took  a  recess  of  two 
hours,  its  members  being  invited  as  the  guests  at 
luncheon  of  Mr.  Frederic  H.  Strawbridge.     The  Re- 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE    9 

solutions  Committee  met  at  the  same  hour  as  the 
guests  of  Mr.  Charles  J.  Rhoads  for  action  on  the 
resolutions  that  had  been  submitted. 

At  three  o'clock  the  conference  was  called  to  order 
and  was  led  in  prayer  by  the  Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd 
Jones  of  Chicago.  A  resolution  was  adopted  ten- 
dering to  Mr.  Strawbridge  the  thanks  of  the  con- 
ference for  his  hospitality.  The  treasurer  of  the 
conference,  Mr.  Herbert  S.  Houston,  who  had  passed 
subscription  papers  among  its  members  at  the  morn- 
ing session,  announced  that  at  that  session  $1,313 
had  been  subscribed,  that  ?ioo  additional  had  come 
in  during  the  luncheon  recess  and  that  opportunity 
would  be  given  for  subscribing  additional  funds  for 
the  expenses  of  the  conference  and  the  work  of  the 
permanent  organization  which  it  was  purposed  to 
establish.  The  chairman  of  the  Resolutions  Com- 
mittee was  called  to  the  platform  and  presented  the 
report  which  appears  on  page  58. 

The  chairman  of  the  conference  finding  it  neces- 
sary to  leave  at  this  time  to  fulfill  an  imperative 
engagement  elsewhere,  called  to  the  chair  the  Hon. 
John  Bassett  Moore  of  New  York,  delivering  the 
farewell  injunction  printed  on  page  63.  After  Mr. 
Taft's  departure  remarks  on  the  report  of  the  Reso- 
lutions Committee  were  made  by  Congressman 
David  J.  Lewis  of  Maryland,  Judge  William  H. 
Wadhams  of  New  York,  Hon.  Victor  Berger  of  Wis- 
consin, Rev.  Junius  B.  Remensnyder,  D.  D.,  of 
New  York,  Mr.  Chester  DeWitt  Pugsley  of  New 
York,  Hon.  John  Wanamaker  of  Pennsylvania,  Prof. 
George  W.  Kirchwey  of  New  York  and  the  Rev. 
Vernon  I'Anson  of  Virginia. 

Amendments  to  the  report  of  the  Resolutions 
Committee  were  moved  as  follows: 

That  the  title  of  the  League  be  not  "League  to  Enforce 
Peace,"  but  "League  to  Establish  and  Maintain  Peace." 


10        LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE 

and,   secondly, 

That  the  signatories  are  to  be  bound  to  the  first,  second 
and  fourth  resolutions  indicated  and  that  the  third  be  cut 
out. 

In  behalf  of  the  Resolutions  Committee,  its  chair- 
man defended  the  report  which  had  been  made. 
Declaring  that  the  proposed  amendments  touched 
the  exact  point  for  which  the  Conference  had  assem- 
bled, he  said: 

The  question  before  us  is,  shall  we  run  the  risk  of  war  to 
prevent  war,  or  shall  we  say,  "let  war  go  on  and  we  will 
wash  our  hands  of  it,  for  we  will  never  touch  the  carnal 
weapon."  That  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  be  the 
exact  point  that  lies  before  us.  The  one  thing  which  we 
are  here  to  consider  is  not  the  ideal  of  peace.  There  are 
plenty  of  societies  for  that,  and  we  all  agree  about  it.  We 
are  here  because  we  think  that  we  have  a  means  which 
will  discourage  war,  and  that  means  of  discouraging  war 
is  the  threat  of  the  use  of  force.  We  are  here  to  state  an 
object,  which  is  that  the  great  countries  of  the  world  ought 
to  combine  by  the  threat  of  war  to  prevent  useless  war- 
fare. 

The  Chairman:  I  will  put  the  first  amendment,  that 
the  title  of  the  League  be  made  "A  League  to  Establish 
and  Maintain  Peace."  All  in  favor  of  that  amendment 
will  please  say  aye. 

A  division  was  called  for,  a  vote  was  taken  and  the 
amendment  lost. 

The  Chairman:  The  second  amendment  is  that  the 
third  clause  in  the  resolution,  with  regard  to  the  use  of 
force,  be  stricken  out. 

A  viva  voce  vote  was  taken  and  the  amendment  lost. 

The  adoption  of  the  resolutions  as  reported  by  the  Reso- 
lutions Committee  was  moved,  the  motion  was  put  and  the 
resolutions  were  adopted  with  apparently  two  dissenting 
votes. 

The  Chairman:  The  ayes  have  it  and  the  resolutions 
are  carried.     (Great  Applause.) 


LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE        ii 

A  permanent  organization  was  established  as  indi- 
cated on  pages  63-64.  A  resolution  of  thanks  "  to 
the  organization  extending  us  the  invitation  and  to 
the  hospitable  persons  who  have  entertained  us  while 
in  Philadelphia  and  to  the  officers  of  the  meeting" 
was  adopted,  after  which  the  conference  adjourned 
at  approximately  five  o'clock  to  the  call  of  the  Execu- 
tive Committee. 


The  Hon.  RUDOLPH  BLANKENBURG 

MAYOR  OF  PHILADELPHIA 

On  Behalf  of  the  City  of  Brotherly  Love,  I  ex- 
tend to  you  gentlemen  a  sincere  and  hearty  wel- 
come. You  did  well  in  choosing  Philadelphia  as 
the  place  of  your  initial  conference.  William  Penn, 
the  founder  of  our  city,  was  a  man  of  peace,  a  hu- 
mane man,  who  abhorred  war.  It  is  more  than  ap- 
propriate to  inaugurate  this  splendid  movement 
for  world  peace  in  Independence  Hall,  the  cradle  of 
American  Liberty,  with  all  its  hallowed  associations. 

A  further  reason  why  Philadelphia  should  be  se- 
lected is  the  fact,  perhaps  unknown  to  many  of  you, 
that  the  first  suggestion  for  international  arbitra- 
tion of  the  Alabama  Claims  came  from  one  of  Phila- 
delphia's distinguished  citizens,  Thomas  Balch. 
When  dark  clouds  had  gathered  on  the  horizon  fol- 
lowing the  depredations  of  the  Alabama,  Thomas 
Balch  proposed  to  President  Lincoln  as  early  as 
November  1864,  to  submit  the  Alabama  Claims  for 
settlement  to  an  international  court  of  justice  to 
be  composed  of  three  jurists.  Our  martyred  Presi- 
dent could  not  at  that  time  be  persuaded  that  Mr. 
Balch's  scheme  of  arbitration  was  practicable,  but 
it  finally  did  prevail,  and  thus  the  first  step  towards 
the  principle  of  international  arbitration  in  that 
matter  was  taken.  This  masterstroke  of  states- 
manship will  ever  redound  to  the  credit  and  fame 
of  its  author.  We  are  ever  eager  to  erect  monu- 
ments in  honor  of  heroes  of  war.  Had  war  instead 
of  peaceful  arbitration  settled  the  dispute,  we  should 
to-day  probably  find  innumerable  shafts  and  costly 
12 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE    13 

monuments  in  memory  of  the  heroes  of  battles 
fought  and  won.  Thanks  to  the  initiative  of  Thomas 
Balch,  war  was  avoided  and  peaceful  settlement 
made.  The  hero  of  peace  should  at  all  times  be 
placed  before  the  hero  of  war. 

We  do  not  know  what  the  results  of  this  conference 
may  be,  but,  with  the  earnest  men  at  its  head,  with 
the  support  of  all  citizens  who  believe  in  civilized 
peace,  I  promise  great  results.  Let  us  hope  that 
from  the  cradle  of  the  infant  nation  of  1776  there 
may  spring  a  world-wide  movement  for  universal 
peace  that  will  endure  through  all  the  ages. 

The  Hon.  WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT 

FORMER  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

Mayor  Blankenburg  and  our  fellow  seekers 
after  Peace: — We  thank  you  for  your  cordial  greet- 
ing. In  calling  this  meeting  my  associates  and  I 
have  not  been  unaware  that  we  might  be  likened 
to  the  Tailors  of  Tooley  Street  who  mistook  them- 
selves for  the  People  of  England.  We  wish  first 
to  say  that  we  do  not  represent  anybody  but  our- 
selves. We  are  not  National  Legislators,  nor  do 
we  control  the  foreign  policy  of  this  Government. 
But  we  are  deeply  interested  in  devising  a  plan  for 
an  International  agreement  by  which,  when  this 
present  war  shall  cease,  a  recurrence  of  such  a  war 
will  be  made  less  possible. 

We  are  not  here  to  suggest  a  means  of  bringing 
this  war  to  an  end;  much  as  that  is  to  be  desired 
and  much  as  we  would  be  willing  to  do  to  secure 
peace,  that  is  not  within  the  project  of  the  present 
meeting. 

We  hope  and  pray  for  peace,  and  our  hopes  of  its 
coming  is  sufficient  to  make  us  think  that  the  present 
is  a  good  time  to  discuss  and  formulate  a  series  of 


14   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

proposals  to  which  the  assent  of  a  number  of  the 
great  powers  could  be  secured.  We  think  a  League 
of  Peace  could  be  formed  which  would  enable 
nations  to  avoid  war  by  furnishing  a  practical  means 
of  settling  international  quarrels,  or  suspending 
them  until  the  blinding  heat  of  passion  had  cooled. 

When  the  World  Conference  is  held,  our  country 
will  have  its  official  representatives  to  speak  for 
us.  We,  Tailors  of  Tooley  Street,  will  not  be  there, 
but  if  in  our  prandial  leisure  we  shall  have  discussed 
and  framed  a  practical  plan  for  a  League  of  Peace, 
our  official  representatives  will  be  aided  and  may 
in  their  discretion  accept  it  and  present  it  to  the 
Conference  as  their  own. 

There  are  Tooley  Streets  in  every  nation  to-day 
and  the  minds  of  earnest  men  are  being  stirred  with 
the  same  thought  and  the  same  purpose — We 
have  heard  from  them  through  various  channels. 
The  denizens  of  those  Tooley  Streets  will  have  their 
influence  upon  their  respective  official  representa- 
tives. No  man  can  measure  the  effect  upon  the  peo- 
ples of  the  Belligerent  Countries  and  upon  the  peoples 
of  the  Neutral  Countries  which  the  horrors  and 
exhaustion  of  this  unprecedented  war  are  going  to 
have.  It  is  certain  that  they  all  will  look  with  much 
more  favorable  eye  to  leagues  for  the  preservation 
of  peace  than  ever  before.  In  no  war,  moreover, 
has  the  direct  interest  that  neutrals  have  in  pre- 
venting a  war  between  neighbors  been  so  clearly 
made  known.  This  interest  of  neutrals  has  been  so 
forced  upon  them  that  it  would  require  only  a  slight 
development  and  growth  in  the  law  of  international 
relations  to  develop  that  interest  into  a  right  to  be 
consulted  before  such  a  war  among  neighbors  can 
be  begun.  This  step  we  hope  to  have  taken  by  the 
formation  of  a  Peace  League  of  the  Great  Powers, 
whose  primary  and  fundamental  principle  shall  he  that 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE    15 

no  war  can  take  place  between  any  two  members  of  the 
League  until  they  have  resorted  to  the  machinery  that 
the  League  proposes  to  furnish  to  settle  the  contro- 
versy likely  to  lead  to  war. 

If  any  member  of  the  League  refuses  to  use  this 
machinery,  and  attacks  another  member  in  breach 
of  his  League  obHgation,  all  members  of  the  League 
agree  to  defend  the  members  attacked  by  force. 

We  do  not  think  the  ultimate  resort  to  force  can 
be  safely  omitted  from  an  effective  League  of  Peace. 
We  sincerely  hope  that  it  may  never  become  nec- 
essary, and  that  the  deterrent  effect  of  its  inevitable 
use  in  case  of  a  breach  of  the  League  obligation  will 
help  materially  to  give  sanction  to  the  laws  of  the 
League  and  to  render  a  resort  to  force  avoidable. 

We  are  not  peace-at-any-price  men,  because  we  do 
not  think  we  have  reached  the  time  when  a  plan 
based  on  the  complete  abolition  of  war  is  practicable. 
As  long  as  nations  partake  of  the  frailties  of  men 
who  compose  them,  war  is  a  possibility  and  that 
possibility  should  not  be  ignored  in  any  League  of 
Peace  that  is  to  be  useful.  We  do  not  think  it 
necessary  to  call  peace-at-any-price  men  cowards, 
or  apply  other  epithets  to  them.  We  have  known 
in  history  the  most  noble  characters  who  adhered 
to  such  a  view  and  yet  whose  physical  and  moral 
courage  is  a  heritage  of  mankind.  To  those  who 
differ  with  us  in  our  view  of  the  necessity  for  this 
feature  of  possible  force  in  our  plan,  we  say  we 
respect  your  attitude.  We  admit  your  claim  to  sin- 
cere patriotism  to  be  as  just  as  ours.  We  do  not 
ascribe  your  desire  to  avoid  war  to  be  a  fear  of  death 
to  yourselves  or  your  sons;  but  rather  to  your  sense 
of  the  horror,  injustice  and  ineffectiveness  of  settling 
any  international  issue  by  such  a  brutal  arbitra- 
ment. Nevertheless,  we  differ  with  you  in  judg- 
ment that  in  the  world  of  nations  as  they  are,  war 


i6   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

can  be  completely  avoided.  We  believe  it  is  still 
necessary  to  use  a  threat  of  overwhelming  force  of  a 
great  League  with  a  willingness  to  make  the  threat 
good  in  order  to  frighten  nations  into  a  use  of  ra- 
tional and  peaceful  means  to  settle  their  issues  with 
their  associates  of  the  League.  Nor  are  we  mili- 
tarists or  jingoes — we  are  trying  to  follow  a  middle 
and  practical  path. 

Now  what  is  the  machinery,  a  resort  to  which  we 
wish  to  force  on  an  intending  belligerent  of  the 
League.  It  consists  of  two  tribunals,  to  one  of 
which  every  issue  must  be  submitted.  Issues  be- 
tween nations  are  of  two  classes: — 

I  St.  Issues  that  can  be  decided  on  principles  of  inter- 
national law  and  equity,  called  justiciable. 

2iid.  Issues  that  cannot  be  decided  on  such  principles 
of  law  and  equity,  but  which  might  be  quite  as  irritating 
and  provocative  of  war,  called  non-justiciable. 

The  questions  of  the  Alaskan  Boundary,  of  the 
Bering  Sea  Seal  Fisheries,  and  of  the  Alabama 
Claims  were  justiciable  issues  that  could  be  settled 
by  a  court,  exactly  as  the  Supreme  Court  would 
settle  claims  between  States. 

The  questions  whether  the  Japanese  should  be 
naturalized,  whether  all  American  citizens  should  be 
admitted  to  Russia  as  merchants  without  regard  to 
religious  faith,  are  capable  of  causing  great  irri- 
tation against  the  nation  denying  the  privilege,  and 
yet  such  nations,  in  the  absence  of  a  treaty  on  the 
subject,  are  completely  within  their  international 
right  and  the  real  essence  of  the  trouble  can  not 
be  aided  by  a  resort  to  a  court.  The  trouble  is 
non-justiciable. 

We  propose  that  for  justiciable  questions  we  shall 
have  an  impartial  court  to  which  all  questions  arising 
between  members  of  the  League  shall  be  submitted. 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE    17 

If  the  court  finds  the  question  justiciable,  it  shall 
decide  it.  If  it  does  not,  it  shall  refer  it  to  a  Com- 
mission of  Conciliation  to  investigate,  confer,  hear 
argument  and  recommend  a  compromise. 

We  do  not  propose  in  our  plan,  to  enforce  compli- 
ance either  with  the  Court's  judgment  or  the  Con- 
ciliation Commission's  recommendation.  We  feel 
that  we  ought  not  to  attempt  too  much.  We  believe 
that  the  forced  submission,  the  truce  taken  to  investi- 
gate and  the  judicial  decision,  or  the  conciliatory 
compromise  recommended  will  form  a  material  in- 
ducement to  peace.  It  will  cool  the  heat  of  passion 
and  will  give  the  men  of  peace  in  each  nation  time 
to  still  the  jingoes. 

The  League  of  Peace  will  furnish  a  great  oppor- 
tunity for  more  definite  formulation  of  the  princi- 
ples of  international  law.  The  arbitral  court  will 
amplify  it  and  enrich  it  in  their  application  of  its 
general  principles  to  particular  cases.  They  will 
create  a  body  of  judge-made  laws  of  the  highest 
value. 

Then  the  existence  of  the  League  will  lead  to  ever 
recurring  congresses  of  the  League,  which,  acting  in 
a  quasi-legislative  capacity,  may  widen  the  scope  of 
international  law  in  a  way  that  a  court  may  not 
feel  able  or  competent  to  do. 

This  is  our  plan.  It  is  not  complicated,  at  least 
in  statement.  In  its  practical  application,  diffi- 
culties now  unforeseen  may  arise,  but  we  believe  it 
ofi'ers  a  working  hypothesis  upon  which  a  successful 
arrangement  can  be  made. 

We  are  greeted  first  by  the  objection  that  no  trea- 
ties can  prevent  war.  We  are  not  called  upon  to  deny 
this  in  order  to  justify  or  vindicate  our  proposals 
as  useful.  We  realize  that  nations  are  sometimes 
utterly  immoral  in  breaking  treaties  and  shamelessly 
bold  in  avowing  their  right  to  do  so  on  the  ground  of 


i8    LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

necessity.  But  this  is  not  always  the  case.  We 
cannot  give  up  treaties  because  sometimes  they  are 
broken  any  more  than  we -can  give  up  commercial 
contracts  because  men  sometimes  dishonor  them- 
selves in  breaking  them.  We  decline  to  assume  that 
all  nations  are  always  dishonorable  or  that  a  solemn 
treaty  obligation  will  not  have  some  deterrent  effect 
upon  a  nation  which  has  plighted  its  faith,  to  prevent 
its  breach.  In  every  nation  there  are  people  who  are 
in  favor  of  peace  and  opposed  to  war,  and  when  you 
furnish  a  treaty  that  binds  the  nation  not  to  go  to 
war,  you  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  people  in  that 
nation  that  do  not  want  to  go  to  war  and  are  in  favor 
of  preserving  the  honor  of  the  nation.  When  we  add 
to  this  the  sanction  of  an  agreement  by  a  number  of 
powerful  nations  to  enforce  the  obligation  of  the  re- 
calcitrant and  faithless  member,  we  think  we  have  a 
treaty  that  is  much  more  than  a  "scrap  of  paper" — 
and  we  base  our  faith  in  this  on  a  common  sense  view 
of  human  nature. 

We  have  got  to  depart  from  the  traditional  policy 
of  this  country,  I  agree.  But  this  war  has  borne  in 
on  us  the  fact  that  we  are  so  near  to  all  the  nations  of 
the  world  to-day  that  we  are  vitally  interested  in 
keeping  war  down  as  far  as  we  can,  and  that  we  had 
better  step  forward  and  assume  certain  obligations 
in  the  interest  of  the  world  and  in  the  interest  of 
mankind,  because  there  is  a  utilitarian  reason  for  it 
— we  are  likely  to  be  drawn  in  ourselves.  Therefore 
we  ought  to  depart  from  the  policy  of  isolation  that 
heretofore  has  served  us  so  well,  because  we  are  a 
strong  nation.  We  must  bear  our  share  of  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  the  moment,  and  we  must  help  along 
the  world,  and  incidentally  help  along  ourselves,  for 
I  believe,  even  if  you  count  on  it  from  a  selfish  stand- 
point, in  the  long  run  it  will  be  a  better  policy. 

It  is  objected  that  we  only  propose  to  include  the 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE    19 

more  powerful  nations.  We'll  gladly  include  them 
all.  But  we  don't  propose  to  have  the  constitution 
of  our  court  complicated  by  a  demand  for  equal 
representation  of  the  many  smaller  nations.  We  be- 
lieve that  when  we  have  a  League  of  larger  powers, 
the  smaller  powers  will  be  glad  to  come  in  and  enjoy 
the  protection  that  the  League  will  afford  against 
the  unjust  aggression  of  the  strong  against  the  weak. 

It  is  suggested  that  we  invite  a  conference  of  neu- 
tral nations  to  bring  about  measures  for  present 
peace  and  to  formulate  demands  as  to  the  protection 
of  neutral  rights.  This  may  be  a  good  plan,  but,  as 
Kipling  says,  that  is  another  story,  and  you  have  got 
to  get  people  from  some  other  street  to  organize  that 
movement. 

Now  we  are  modest  in  our  hopes,  but  that  is  no 
reason  for  thinking  that  we  cannot  accomplish  what 
we  recommend.  On  the  contrary,  we  think  it  is  a 
reason  for  greater  hope  that  what  we  say  may  be 
practical. 

We  are  very  grateful  to  the  committee  who  have 
organized  this  reception  and  tendered  this  dinner. 
We  sought  Independence  Hall  and  Philadelphia  as 
our  meeting  place,  because  we  had  much  interest  in 
the  cause  we  are  promoting,  and  much  confidence 
in  the  practical  utility  of  our  proposals,  and  we  knew 
that  in  this  city  and  hall,  where  our  nation  was  born, 
we  could  fix  country-wide  public  attention  on  our 
discussion  and  recommendation. 


President  A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL 

OF  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 

Mr.  Mayor,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  We  are  no 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  We  have  no  authority 
to  ordain  anything.  We  are  merely  here,  within  the 
rights  of  the  citizens  of  any  true  republic,  to  express 


20   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

our  opinions,  to  make  suggestions,  and,  if  we  please, 
to  make  them  so  loud  that  they  will  be  considered, 
and,  if  they  have  any  merit,  that  they  may  ultimately 
fmd  adoption.  We  are  not  here  to  express  general 
aspirations  for  peace.  The  time  for  that  has  passed. 
Virtually  the  whole  American  nation,  without  excep- 
tion, yearns  for  a  period  of  everlasting  peace.  But 
Utopia  is  a  long  way  off,  and  what  we  are  attempting 
to  do  is  merely  to  make  a  practical  suggestion  which 
may  bring  us  an  inch  nearer  to  that  far-oflf  goal. 

Let  me  take  up  the  items  upon  the  call  for  this 
conference.  The  first  is  that  the  United  States 
should  be  a  member  of  any  League  of  Peace  which 
we  advocate.  Some  people  have  said  that  the  United 
States  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  quarrels  of  Europe, 
that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  involves  that,  and  that 
we  must  not  take  on  our  shoulders  any  part  of  the 
responsibility  for  the  peace  of  the  world.  To  that  I 
answer  that,  if  it  be  true,  then  our  gathering  here  is 
not  only  futile,  but  it  is  an  impertinence.  For  us  to 
meet  together  and  advise  the  nations  of  Europe  what 
they  had  better  do,  but  which  we  think  we  had  better 
not  take  a  part  in,  is,  to  say  the  least,  injudicious, 
and  we  had  better  stop  now  and  go  home.  The 
Monroe  Doctrine  was  invented  at  a  time  when  the 
ocean  took  nearly  a  month  to  traverse.  The  ocean 
has  sunk  to  a  lake.  In  the  next  generation  it  will 
have  sunk  to  a  river.  We  are  on  the  shores  of  Europe 
or  drawing  closer  and  closer  to  those  shores  all  the 
time.  If,  therefore,  we  cannot  cast  oflF  our  respon- 
sibility for  what  goes  on,  if  what  goes  on  deeply 
affects  our  interests,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  us 
to  be  a  part  of  any  League  that  we  think  the  great 
nations  of  the  world  ought  to  make. 

Now  the  provisions,  as  stated  in  this  tentative 
draft,  are  that  all  the  great  nations  of  the  world 
should  agree  to  submit  to  arbitration — that  is,  to 


LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE        21 

lay  before  a  court — any  justiciable  disputes  that 
they  may  have,  and  by  justiciable  disputes  we  mean 
those  that  can  be  determined  on  ascertained  grounds 
of  law  and  equity;  in  other  words,  ascertained 
grounds  of  justice.  But,  after  all,  the  great  part 
of  the  disputes  which  cause  wars  among  peoples 
are  not  justiciable.  They  are  not  questions  which 
can  be  settled  on  strict  rules  of  justice.  They  are 
questions  of  interests,  questions  of  policy,  questions 
which  often  go  deeper  than  those  things  which  de- 
pend upon  the  rules  and  laws  of  justice;  and  it  is 
these  also  that  must  be  submitted — submitted  in 
this  case  not  to  a  tribunal,  but  to  a  Council  of  Con- 
ciliation, which  will  attempt  to  bring  the  parties 
together.  And,  mark  you,  we  have  not  said  that 
they  must  accept  the  decision  of  the  tribunal,  or 
that  they  must  conform  to  the  recommendations 
of  the  Council  of  Conciliation,  and  that  because  it 
is  better  to  take  one  step  firmly  which  can  be  en- 
forced, than  to  take  further  steps  which  can  not  be 
enforced.  There  are  quarrels  so  deep  that  no  con- 
ciliation is  likely,  at  the  present  stage  of  the  world, 
to  heal  them.  But  we  never  know  whether  those 
quarrels  do  go  so  deep  until  they  have  been  threshed 
out  and  made  public.  The  contention  is  that  be- 
fore nations  resort  to  arms,  they  shall  plead  their 
cause  openly,  by  means  of  a  public  hearing,  before 
as  nearly  as  may  be  an  impartial  tribunal,  or  im- 
partial Council  of  Conciliation,  and  that  they  shall 
not  draw  the  sword  until  that  body  has  had  a  chance 
to  listen  to  what  they  have  to  say  and  to  render  its 
opinion  thereon.  A  period  of  a  year  is  commonly 
stated  to  give  plenty  of  time  for  the  court  to  act 
and  for  the  nations  to  cool  down. 

Now  we  come  to  the  third  point,  which  is  the 
vital  suggestion  of  the  program,  and  that  relates 
to  the  enforcement  of  the  preceding  provisions. 


22        LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE 

The  difficulty  that  we  have  found  with  arbitration 
is  this,  that  nations  are  very  ready  to  arbitrate 
those  things  which  they  do  not  take  seriously  enough 
to  care  to  fight  about,  and  in  that  way  arbitration 
has  been  extremely  successful.  It  has  not  only  set- 
tled disputes  according  to  justice,  which  would  not 
have  led  to  war,  and  disputes  which  might  have 
been  unjustly  settled  by  a  lesser  nation's  fear  of  the 
power  of  the  greater,  but  it  has  also  removed  causes 
of  friction  which  might,  in  time,  have  gone  into  the 
great  balance  of  feeling  which  provokes  war.  But, 
after  all,  there  is  something  lying  beyond  that. 
There  are  disputes  on  which  nations  would  go  to  war 
at  once,  and  those  wars  we  wish  to  prevent  if  pos- 
sible. The  difficulty  has  been  so  far  that  we  have 
had  a  court,  but  have  had  no  sheriff.  We  have  had 
a  tribunal,  but  have  had  no  police.  We  are  very 
much  in  the  position  of  the  frontier  settlement,  where 
men  are  shooting  at  one  another  at  sight  over  games 
of  cards  or  the  stealing  of  a  horse.  And  what  is 
done?  They  organize  themselves  into  a  vigilance 
committee  to  prevent  outbreaks  and  breaches  of  the 
peace.  This  every  frontier  settlement  without  a 
policeman  has  found  it  necessary  to  do.  There 
must  be  some  power  to  enforce  a  submission  to 
arbitration.  There  must  be  some  power  which  will 
say  to  a  nation  that  wishes  to  draw  the  sword:  "No, 
your  sword  must  remain  in  its  scabbard  until  you 
two  have  had  a  fair  hearing,  until  public  opinion 
has  had  a  chance  to  form,  until  your  own  public 
and  the  public  in  other  nations  has  had  a  chance  to 
make  up  its  mind  whether  this  matter  is  really 
worth  fighting  about."  In  most  cases  the  fight,  if 
so  postponed,  would  not  occur.  It  would  not  occur 
because  when  men  think  over  war  for  a  year  be- 
forehand, they  begin  to  realize  what  it  means.  As 
soon  as  you  declare  war,  the  nation  is  of  necessity 


LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE        23 

afire  with  emotion.  No  thought  can  be  taken  of 
anything.  But  if-  you  say  beforehand:  "A  year 
hence  we  shall  go  to  war,"  people  begin  to  talk  it 
over.  There  gets  to  be  the  expression  of  dissent 
among  the  people,  which  can  not  be  expressed  if 
a  war  is  suddenly  snapped  upon  them.  We  know 
very  well  that  in  every  nation  now  at  war  there 
have  been  parties  that  did  not  want  to  go  to  war, 
and,  in  those  nations  which  have  held  off,  those 
parties  have  found  some  expression.  In  those  that 
went  in  at  the  outset,  they  found  no  expression 
whatever.  What  we  are  aiming  at,  therefore,  is  to 
delay  war  for  a  year,  during  which  the  cause  can  be 
pleaded  before  the  bar  of  the  public  and  the  bar  of  a 
tribunal. 

Now  how  are  we  to. procure  that  year  of  delay? 
Our  suggestion  is  that  the  countries  should  band 
themselves  together  by  a  solemn  league  and  cove- 
nant that  they  will  jointly  and  severally  enforce  by 
arms  peace  upon  any  one  who  breaks  the  peace. 
We  do  not  abolish  war.  We  can  not  abolish  war. 
Let  us  look  at  the  history  of  the  time  before  Magna 
Charta.  What  happened  then?  The  royal  courts 
came  in.  Did  the  royal  courts  abolish  private  war 
between  barons?  No.  They  could  not  do  that  at 
once.  What  was  the  first  step  that  they  undertook? 
They  said  that  two  men  should  not  resort  to  arms 
and  fight  until  the  case  had  been  brought  before  the 
court,  argued  and  stated  in  proper  form,  and  then, 
by  the  leave  of  the  court,  they  might  fight.  That 
was  called  the  trial  by  battle.  It  was  the  first  step. 
It  had  the  effect  of  preventing,  one  can  hardly  say 
what  proportion,  but  an  enormous  proportion  of 
the  private  fights  that  would  otherwise  have  taken 
place.  And  it  prevented  a  baron  from  bringing  in 
all  his  neighbors  "to  take  part  with  him.  He  had  to 
fight  it  out  single-handed  with  the  baron  on  the 


24   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

other  side.  That  was  a  step  forward.  That  was 
the  first  step  in  civiHzation  from  the  Dark  Ages  into 
the  more  orderly  period  of  the  Middle  Ages.  And 
that  is  the  step  which  we  find  it  necessary  to  take 
to-day. 

Now  it  has  been  suggested  that  we  might  resort 
to  other  methods  than  banding  the  nations  together 
with  an  agreement  that  they  would  by  force  of 
arms  attack  any  nation  that  violated  the  peace  with 
another  before  submitting  its  case  to  arbitration. 
It  has  been  suggested  that,  instead  of  agreeing  to 
go  to  war,  they  should  agree  to  consult  as  to  what 
should  be  done.  When  a  policeman  sees  a  fight  go- 
ing on  in  the  street,  does  he  say:  "  I  will  notify  the 
City  Council,  that  they  may  consider  what  shall  be 
done?"  When  he  sees  a  burglar  proposing  to  enter 
a  house,  does  he  call  together  a  number  of  people 
on  the  street  to  consult  about  what  had  better  be 
done?  Would  that  suppress  burglary?  Not  only 
must  you  have  a  policeman,  but  your  policeman  must 
be  armed.  But,  it  is  said,  then  you  are  encouraging 
bloodshed.  Not  at  all.  The  crimes  that  are  pre- 
vented by  the  policeman  are  infinite  in  number  com- 
pared with  the  cases  where  he  resorts  to  bloodshed 
to  prevent  them.  The  certainty  that  all  the  great 
nations  of  the  world  would  attack  any  one  which 
broke  the  peace  with  another  would  be  enough  to 
prevent  that  breach  of  the  peace.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  nation  merely  knew  that  the  others  would 
consult  together  as  to  what  would  be  done,  that 
nation  would  know  very  well  that  the  result  of  the 
consultation  would  be  that  they  would  do  nothing, 
that  they  would  merely  talk  and  express  opinions 
and,  as  it  were,  be  like  a  policeman  who  says  to  the 
burglar:  "Public  opinion  does  not  approve  of  your 
entering  that  house.  The  enlightened  sentiment 
of  the  community  is  averse  to  it.     I  will  go  and  con- 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   25 

suit  others  as  to  what  had  better  be  done."  Oh,  no. 
If  we  are  practical  people,  thinking  of  a  practical 
end,  what  we  need  is,  as  I  say,  the  sheriff  and  the 
^055^  comitatus.  We  need  an  absolute  enforcement. 
We  need  that  every  nation  shall  know  that,  if  it 
makes  a  breach  of  the  peace  before  submitting  its 
case  to  the  tribunal,  it  will  mean  war  with  the  whole 
world — and  that  war  will  never  occur.  The  fact 
that  intervention  is  certain  to  occur  is  enough.  If 
you  could  fully  persuade  any  large  nation  that  war 
declared  under  those  conditions  would  mean  at  once 
a  war  with  the  whole  world,  you  would  have  attained 
your  object  of  perpetual  peace. 

Your  difficulty  is  merely  this,  that,  of  course,  your 
system  may  break  down.  It  may  be  that  one  half 
of  the  nations  of  the  world  are  anxious  at  the  same 
time  to  go  to  war  with  the  other  half,  and  that  there 
is  no  outstanding  force  that  can  be  brought  against 
them.  That  is  possible.  We  can  not  attempt  to 
prevent  by  any  machinery  a  case  of  that  kind.  But 
that  kind  of  a  case  is  extremely  remote.  All  that  we 
hope  to  do  is  to  reduce,  and  to  reduce  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, the  danger  and  the  probability  of  war,  and, 
mind  you,  every  war  that  you  prevent  tends,  by 
civilizing  man,  to  prevent  the  next  one.  Every 
approach  that  we  can  make  to  an  actual  prevention 
of  war,  each  case  where  it  can  be  made  obvious  that 
a  nation  would  have  gone  to  war  with  its  neighbor 
if  it  had  not  been  for  such  a  League  of  Peace,  dis- 
courages every  other  nation  from  trying  it,  and  that 
can  be  brought  about  only  in  case  the  certainty  of 
the  result  is  such  as  to  act  as  an  absolute  deterrent. 

Now  the  last  point  upon  the  program  is  that  the 
League  should  try  to  work  out  more  fully  codes  of 
international  law  and  principles  of  international 
justice.  That,  of  course,  is  essential  as  a  step  for- 
ward.    When  you  have  prevented  war,  you  must 


26        LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE 

go  forward  and  make  people  realize  that  war  does 
not  occur,  because  justice  took  its  place.  You  must 
build  up  a  belief,  a  feeling,  a  confidence  in  justice, 
and;  when  you  have  done  that,  you  are  at  least  on 
the  path  toward  that  Utopia  that  we  all  long  for. 

The  Hon.  OSCAR  S.  STRAUS 

MEMBER  PERMANENT  COURT  OF  ARBITRATION 
AT  THE  HAGUE 

We  have  assembled  here  at  a  time  and  in  conso- 
nance with  the  spirit  and  meaning  of  three  epoch- 
making  anniversaries  in  the  onward  march  of  civil 
liberty, — events  which  have  materially  influenced 
and  shaped  the  ^destinies  of  the  people  of  the  old 
world  as  well  as  the  new.  The  Magna  Charta,  Bun- 
ker Hill,  and  Waterloo,  each  in  their  turn  served  to 
curb  the  prerogatives  of  rulers,  the  power  of  might 
and  to  extend  and  safeguard  the  rights  of  the  people. 

The  purpose  and  time  of  this  conference  accen- 
tuates a  reversal  of  the  old  and  discredited  standards 
and  axiom  that  "in  peace  prepare  for  war,"  for 
we  have  assembled  in  the  midst  of  war  to  prepare 
for  peace,  believing  that  under  the  majesty  and  com- 
pelling power  of  the  law  will  be  found  the  surest 
guaranty  for  permanent  peace.  While  righteous- 
ness exalteth  a  nation,  history  and  the  present  war 
give  uncontrovertible  proof  that  righteousness  will 
not  protect  a  nation  unless  other  nations  are  likewise 
exalted  by  righteousness.  When  that  time  arrives 
we  will  have  reached  the  millennium,  which  from 
present  indication  is  so  distant  as  to  justify  a  search 
for  ways  and  means  that  will  serve  the  purpose  of 
the  world  in  the  intervening  time. 

It  is  a  fact  which  we  would  deceive  ourselves  by 
failing  to  recognize,  that  fundamental  changes  in 
the  progress  of  mankind  have  rarely  if  ever  been 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   27 

possible  save  by  war  and  as  a  sequel  of  war.  His- 
tory of  nations,  from  Armageddon  to  the  invasion  of 
Belgium,  teaches  that  war  will  not  be  banished  until 
the  leading  and  more  powerful  nations  betome 
civilized  enough  to  create  an  organization  that  can 
not  only  induce,  but  can  force  resort  to  other  means 
and  impose  fundamental  changes  without  resort 
to  war.  But — why  not  war?  Because  history  and 
the  experience  of  mankind  teach  that  the  greatest 
curse  of  war  is  that  it  settles  most  international 
differences  by  the  force  of  might,  and  not  by  the 
arbitrament  of  right,  and  when  so  settled  it  will  in  the 
future  as  in  the  past  continue  to  breed  war.  Because 
we  believe  in  pity  for  the  widow  and  the  orphans,  we 
must  seek  a  higher  patriotism  and  a  broader  national- 
ism which  will  no  longer  teach  that  the  only  path  of 
the  patriot  to  Heaven  must  lead  through  the  bloody 
trenches  of  Hell. 

Three  distinct  methods  in  the  past  fifteen  cen- 
turies for  maintaining  peace  in  Europe  have  suc- 
cessively been  tried,  and  broken  down.  First, 
the  dominance  of  a  single  state  whose  fiat  was  law, 
which  culminated  in  the  tragedy  of  the  fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire  under  the  pikes  and  battle  axes  of 
the  barbarian  hordes.  The  Second,  the  result  of 
the  Thirty  Years  War,  and  the  Treaty  of  West- 
phalia, from  which  the  system  of  the  Balance  of 
Power  had  its  rise.  This  developed  together  with 
the  system  known  as  the  Concert  of  European  Pow- 
ers in  successive  stages  of  aggression,  whose  path- 
way is  strewn  with  the  wreck  of  empires.  Then 
we  arrive  at  the  infuriated  heroism  of  the  Napoleonic 
period.  Lastly,  we  reach  the  stage  following  the 
Congress  of  Berlin  which  developed  in  the  group- 
ing of  European  States  into  opposing  camps  of  dual 
and  triple  alliances  and  ententes,  of  which  the  far 
flung  battle  lines  in  which  two-thirds  of  the  world 


28   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

are  now  arrayed  are  the  tragic  proof  of  its  awful 
breakdown. 

The  purpose  and  object  of  the  Conference  which 
will  fittingly  assemble  in  Independence  Hall,  the 
cradle  of  America's  freedom,  is  to  discuss  and 
consider  proposals  for  reconstructing  a  new  inter- 
national freedom  under  the  majesty  of  righteous- 
ness and  law,  supported  not  by  the  power  of  a  single 
state  or  a  group  of  states  but  the  compelling  power 
of  all  the  confederated  states. 

If  the  nations  are  to  rise  out  from  the  extreme  suf- 
fering of  the  present  war  to  supreme  wisdom,  guided 
by  the  lesson  of  their  appalling  sacrifices,  they  must 
reconstruct  their  international  relationship  upon 
new  and  broader  foundations  resting  upon  new  and 
higher  moral  standards, — standards  which  will  place 
behind  the  right  of  each  state  the  might  of  all  states 
composing  the  league  of  states.  Just  as  the  barons 
of  England  wrested  from  absolutism  and  militarism 
the  right  to  establish  justice  under  courts  and  jury, 
so  must  the  people  of  the  civilized  world  wrest  from 
nationalism  a  Magna  Charta  of  internationalism 
predicated  not  as  now  upon  each  nation's  individ- 
ual capacity  for  war  but  upon  a  mightier  power,  the 
collective  power  and  capacity  of  the  confederated 
nations  for  peace. 

To  accomplish  this  high  purpose  let  the  nations 
draw  the  lesson  which  our  hundred  years  of  peace 
with  Great  Britain  teaches, — a  peace  not  made  after 
exhaustion  by  an  all-conquering  victor,  exacting 
humiliating  and  revengeful  terms  from  a  vanquished 
foe,  but  in  the  midst  of  war  in  a  spirit  of  mutual 
concession,  leaving  outstanding  differences  to  be 
adjusted  by  boards  of  conciliation  and  by  courts  of 
arbitration.  Guided  doubtless  by  that  spirit  the 
President  in  his  recent  note  to  Germany,  while 
firmly  upholding  the  law  of  nations,  the  rights  of 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE    29 

humanity  and  of  neutrality,  instead  of  an  ultima- 
tum, instead  of  closing  the  door  to  peace,  he  has 
with  masterly  wisdom  and  skill  lifted  the  latch  on 
the  door  of  mediation  for  the  combating  nations. 
In  doing  so,  in  the  true  spirit  of  humanity,  he  has  co- 
ordinated our  nation's  rights  and  justified  grievances 
to  the  welfare  of  the  world  in  arms  so  as  to  hasten  the 
day  of  peace. 

The  Hon.  GEORGE   GRAY 

MEMBER    PERMANENT   COURT    OF    ARBITRATION    AT 
THE    HAGUE 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  am 
very  glad  to  be  here  to-night — because  I  rejoice  to 
see  this  great  meeting  of  men  and  women,  who,  I 
believe,  represent  the  men  and  women  of  this  country 
united  in  forwarding  the  great  cause  of  peace 
throughout  the  world. 

It  is  very  easy  to  talk  about  peace,  and  we  all  sub- 
scribe to  what  has  been  said,  or  is  likely  to  be  said,  in 
favor  of  a  propaganda  of  peace.  But  when  it  comes 
to  doing  something  practical,  to  making  a  real  for- 
ward step  in  bringing  about  peace  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth,  it  requires  very  much  thought  and  very 
much  action  before  any  achievement  can  be  made. 
I  believe,  though,  that  the  movement  commenced 
by  this  League  of  Peace  will  vindicate  the  thought 
and  purpose  of  the  American  people  to  resist  the  great 
tide  of  savagery  and  lawlessness  that  seems  now  to 
threaten  to  engulf  the  whole  world.  Our  purpose 
here  to-night  is  to  propose  a  way  to  make  that  resis- 
tance effective,  so  that  this  great  peace-loving  nation 
may  devote  itself  to  upholding  the  standards  of  civil- 
ization, peace  and  good-will  throughout  the  earth. 

It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  nothing  can  be  done  to 
this  end  unless  out  of  the  confusion  of  individual 


30   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

utterances  a  true,  high  note  can  be  sounded,  voicing 
the  dominant  thought  and  intelligence  of  the  Ameri- 
can people.  We  are  all  loyal  to  the  traditions  of  our 
country  and  proud  of  our  leadership  in  the  cause  of 
peace.  This  leadership  is  attested  by  the  more  than 
sixty  arbitration  treaties  that  have  been  proposed 
and  consummated  by  the  United  States  with  the 
nations  of  the  world.  Unembarrassed  as  we  are  by 
dynastic  ambitions  and  breathing  an  air  free  from  the 
baleful  poison  of  militarism,  we  have  been  enabled 
to  serve  the  cause  of  humanity  by  our  example,  and 
to  preach  a  new  gospel,  not  of  hate,  but  of  friendliness 
and  good-will  to  all  the  nations  of  the  world. 

This  is  not  the  mere  complacency  of  the  Fourth  of 
July  spirit,  but  a  sober  realization  of  the  great  oppor- 
tunities that  an  undeveloped  continent  presented  to 
the  brave  and  liberty-loving  men  who  laid  so  broad 
and  deep  the  foundations  of  our  institutions  on  these 
western  shores  of  the  Atlantic.  From  the  seed  then 
planted  has  grown  this  great  Republic,  and  an 
Americanism  which,  whatever  its  shortcomings,  is 
instinct  with  the  love  of  justice,  peace  and  ordered 
liberty.  We  must  not  be  other  than  true  to  our 
past,  nor  forget  the  duties  that  that  past  imposes 
upon  us. 

We  cannot  abdicate  our  position  of  leadership  in 
the  cause  of  peace  among  the  nations,  and  our  cour- 
age must  rise  with  the  dangers  that  confront  us.  We 
cannot  sit  as  silent  and  indifferent  spectators  in  the 
world's  great  amphitheatre,  and  view  the  enactment 
of  the  bloodiest  drama  in  all  history,  and  not  raise 
our  voice  in  protest  against  its  unspeakable  and 
causeless  horrors. 

As  I  understand  the  purpose  of  this  League  of 
Peace,  its  efforts  are  to  be  directed  to  making  itself 
an  efficient  coadjutor  in  concentrating  the  public 
opinion  of  this  country,  in  mobilizing  it,  so  to  speak, 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   31 

and  causing  it  to  be  heard  with  respect  by  the  warring 
nations  of  Europe, 

Our  President  has  placed  his  country  upon  the  un- 
assailable ground  of  law  and  humanity,  and  there  we 
can  stand  unshaken  and  unshakable  in  his  support. 
Some  day  the  time  may  come,  and  we  all  fervently 
pray  that  it  may  soon  come,  when  he  can  offer,  as  the 
spokesman  of  the  people,  a  suggestion  that  may  find 
lodgment  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  the  peoples  of  the 
world.  This  voice,  when  spoken,  must  be  the  voice 
of  a  virile  people,  who,  with  no  selfish  aims  to  sub- 
serve and  with  no  purpose  of  aggression  or  aggran- 
dizement, stand  for  law  and  justice  and  the  broad 
humanities  that  underlie  our  civilization. 

We  must  be  ready  to  defend,  if  needs  be,  the  posi- 
tion we  have  taken,  and  prepare  ourselves,  not  for 
war,  but,  as  has  been  happily  said  by  someone, 
against  war.  There  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  our 
character  as  a  peace-loving  nation,  in  so  strengthen- 
ing our  power  that  perforce  we  will  be  listened  to 
when  we  speak,  at  the  right  time,  at  the  right  mo- 
ment, the  word  that  shall  attract  the  attention  of  the 
whole  world.  In  order  that  we  may  do  this,  I  ven- 
ture to  say  that  it  is  our  duty  so  to  strengthen  the 
sea  power  of  this  nation  that  our  navy  may  protect 
everywhere  the  commerce  that  traverses  the  high 
seas  and  the  ocean  paths  that  are  free  to  all  neutral 
nations;  that  we  shall  so  strengthern  our  little  Army 
— so  moderately  strengthen  it — that  it  may  serve  as 
the  nucleus  upon  which  the  citizen  soldiery  of  the 
States  may  be  built  into  an  effective  and  efficient 
army  of  defense.  These,  1  believe,  are  all  senti- 
ments which  are  in  the  hearts  of  the  American  people 
when  they  hold  up  the  olive  branch  of  peace  to  the 
nations  of  the  world. 


32        LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE 
Mr.  HAMILTON  HOLT 

EDITOR,    THE     INDEPENDENT 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  Three  questions  are  now 
before  the  friends  of  peace.  First,  how  can  we  keep 
out  of  the  war?  Second,  how  can  the  war  be  stopped? 
Third,  how  can  all  war  be  stopped?  It  is  the  purpose 
of  the  conference  that  is  to  convene  at  Independence 
Hall  to-morrow  to  discuss  this  third  question. 

In  1795,  in  his  famous  essay,  "Perpetual  Peace," 
the  great  German  philosopher,  Emmanuel  Kant,  said 
that  we  never  can  have  universal  peace  until  the 
world  is  politically  organized,  and  that  it  will  not  be 
possible  to  organize  the  world  politically  until  the 
peoples  and  not  the  kings  rule.  And  he  added  that 
we  must  rid  our  hearts  of  the  feeling  of  hatred  and 
hostility  to  the  stranger  within  our  gates  and  to  the 
neighbor  across  our  border. 

If  this  be  the  true  philosophy  of  peace — and  it 
seems  to  me  the  most  fundamental  thing  I  have  ever 
read  on  the  peace  movement — then,  when  the  Great 
War  is  over,  and  the  stricken,  sobered  peoples  set 
about  to  rear  a  new  civilization  on  the  ashes  of  the 
old,  they  will  have  to  do  at  least  three  things:  they 
will  have  to  extend  democracy  everywhere — even 
here  in  the  United  States  of  America.  They  will 
have  to  instill  within  themselves  a  spirit  of  hospital- 
ity and  good-will  towards  other  peoples;  and  they  will 
have  to  create  the  international  machinery  for  the 
doing  of  the  international  business.  They  will  have 
to  organize  the  world  politically. 

The  bringing  about  of  the  spirit  of  hospitality  to- 
wards other  peoples,  the  extension  of  democracy,  if  it 
is  brought  about  at  all,  must  be  done  within  the 
nations;  but  the  political  organization  of  the  world 
will  not  be  done  within  the  nations,  but  by  joint  ac- 
tion of  the  nations.    And  there,  and  there  only,  can 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   33 

the  United  States  exert  any  influence  in  the  peace 
movement,  beyond  its  own  borders. 

The  problem,  then,  of  our  conference  is,  how  to 
organize  the  world  poHtically  for  peace,  and  the  out- 
come of  peace,  which  is  the  limitation  of  armaments. 

Let  me  first  take  up  the  question  of  the  limitation 
of  armaments.  During  the  last  ten  years  a  great 
fight  has  been  waged  between  the  pacifists  and  the 
militarists,  over  the  question  of  armaments.  The 
militarists  claim  that  armaments  are  our  ultimate  pro- 
tection from  annihilation.  The  pacifists  say  that 
armaments  lead  directly  to  war,  and  if  we  prepare 
for  a  thing  we  get  what  we  prepare  for,  and  that  this 
war  would  never  have  happened  if  some  nations  had 
not  been  prepared  for  it. 

Now  the  truth  is  that  both  of  these  contentions 
are  perfectly  correct.  Armaments  do  protect  us 
when  we  are  in  trouble,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
are  one  of  the  causes — perhaps  the  chief  cause — that 
bring  us  into  trouble.  How  can  we  solve  this  para- 
dox? How  can  we  have  the  protection  that  arma- 
ments afford  and  at  the  same  time  disarm?  Because 
if  we  cannot  do  this,  we  must  admit  that  it  is  a  law  of 
nature  that  war  is  to  consume  all  the  fruits  of  progress. 

Before  we  can  understand  this  question  clearly, 
we  must  recognize  the  threefold  function  of  force  in 
international  relations.  First  there  is  the  force  of 
international  police,  which  is  almost  wholly  good. 
An  international  police  by  might  enthrones  reason. 
The  second  kind  of  force  is  aggression,  which  is 
almost  always  bad.  It  is  an  attempt  to  impose  the 
will  of  the  aggressor  on  someone  else,  who  had  no 
part  in  helping  to  decide  as  to  whether  the  cause  was 
just  or  not.  Any  judge,  any  lawyer,  will  offer  con- 
vincing arguments  that  this  is  the  height  of  immor- 
ality. The  third  use  of  force  is  defense.  It  is  jus- 
tifiable as  long  as  offence  exists.     Defense  is  simply 


34   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

the  neutralization  of  offense.  The  problem  of  the 
peace  movement  is  therefore  how  to  get  rid  of  theforce 
of  aggression  and  replace  it  with  the  force  of  inter- 
national police.  Defense  of  course  will  automatic- 
ally cease  when  offense  ceases. 

How  can  this  be  done?  1  know  of  but  three  ways. 
The  London  Spectator  suggested  one  a  few  weeks  ago. 
It  said,  let  a  nation  or  group  of  nations  disarm  all  the 
other  nations  by  force  and  then  disarm  itself.  That 
idea,  of  course,  is  too  preposterous  to  discuss.  An- 
other way  to  limit  armaments  would  be  to  call  a 
conference  of  the  nations  and  to  limit  armaments  by 
joint  agreement.  That,  however,  1  believe  to  be 
impossible,  because  there  are  too  many  medieval- 
minded  nations  in  existence. 

There  is  just  one  other  way.  It  may  be  that  here 
and  now  there  are  enough — and  there  must  be 
enough — nations  who  are  ready  to  disarm,  or  to  limit 
their  armaments,  in  advance  of  the  others.  How 
can  they  do  it,  with  safety  to  themselves?  Let  them 
form  a  league  of  peace,  based  on  the  principle  of  the 
United  States  between  members  of  the  league  and 
on  the  principle  of  England  as  to  the  relation  of 
members  of  the  league  to  outside  nations.  Let  me 
explain.  When  our  forefathers  united  over  a  hun- 
dred years  ago  to  create  the  United  States  of  America 
the  State  of  New  York  and  the  State  of  Virginia  each 
had  its  separate  navy.  But,  upon  joining  the  Union, 
they  abolished  their  separate  navies,  and  relinquished 
their  right  to  intervene  by  force  in  interstate  affairs. 
In  return,  they  were  guaranteed  home  rule  and  local 
autonomy  by  the  combined  power  of  the  other  States. 
The  United  States  is  founded,  not  on  the  principle  of 
home  rule — that  is  the  basis  upon  which  the  States 
are  built — but  on  the  principle  of  sacrifice,  on  the 
duty  of  sovereigns  to  surrender  a  part  of  their  sov- 
ereignty whenever  the  general  welfare  demands  it. 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE    35 

The  taxes  that  New  York  and  Virginia  paid  into 
the  Federal  treasury  for  the  protection  which  they 
received  from  the  Federal  Army  and  Navy,  were 
less  than  the  amount  of  taxes  they  had  previously 
paid  into  their  own  State  treasuries,  to  maintain 
their  own  military  forces,  before  the  Union  was 
established.  In  other  words,  New  York  and  Vir- 
ginia, by  joining  our  Union,  reduced  their  arma- 
ments. Now  let  the  nations  of  the  League  reduce 
their  armaments,  in  a  similar  way.  How?  Our 
forefathers  created  international  institutions  for 
the  carrying  on  of  the  international  business — 
a  Supreme  Court,  a  Congress,  an  Executive — and  then 
they  reduced  their  armaments  down  to  the  point  of 
safety,  where  the  Federal  force  was  great  enough  to 
protect  the  League  from  being  smashed  from  within 
or  from  without.  Now  let  the  League  of  nations 
do  the  same  thing.  Let  them  form  a  court,  a  coun- 
cil of  conciliation,  and  a  legislature,  and  put  force 
behind  them,  and  then  and  then  only  can  they  afford 
to  reduce  down  to  the  point  of  safety.  And  what 
is  the  point  of  safety?  Where  the  forces  of  the 
League  are  greater  than  those  of  any  nation  that  is 
likely  to  be  brought  against  it.  That  is  the  principle 
of  England.  England  has  a  navy  equal  to  any  two 
navies  likely  to  come  against  it.  Let  the  League  of 
Peace  be  joined  together,  therefore,  on  the  basis 
of  the  United  States,  with  courts,  parliaments,  exec- 
utives and  limitation  of  armanents,  and  keep  a 
force  greater  than  that  of  any  nation  outside,  for 
use  against  those  nations  that  will  not  forswear  force. 

Now  suppose  a  League  of  Peace  is  established. 
Suppose  the  majority  of  the  great  powers — all  the 
great  powers,  if  we  can  get  them — should  join  such  a 
League.  The  small  powers  would  have  to  come  in 
for  protection.  Suppose  the  great  powers,  or  the 
majority  of  them,  had  a  standing  army,  we  will  say, 


36   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

of  2,cxx),ooo  men.  Suppose  Russia  stays  outside 
of  the  League  and  has  a  standing  army  of  a  million 
men.  The  League,  even  if  they  thought  that  Rus- 
sia was  likely  to  attack  it,  could  reduce  its  force 
down  to  a  million  and  a  quarter,  or  a  million  and  a 
half,  and  still  protect  itself  against  Russia.  But  what 
will  be  happening  in  the  meantime  in  Russia?  Will 
not  the  liberals  notice  that  themembers  of  the  League 
are  enjoying  greater  protection  for  less  taxes  and 
are  attempting  all  sorts  of  co-operative  experiments, 
perhaps  even  free  trade,  as  did  our  States  under  our 
constitution?  They  will  forthwith  begin  to  bring 
pressure  to  bear  upon  the  Russian  Government, 
until  finally  Russia  will  apply  for  membership  in  the 
League.  Then,  when  Russia  enters,  there  can  be  a 
second  pro  rata  reduction  of  the  forces  of  the  League 
down  to  the  size  of  the  next  great  nation  outside, 
and,  when  that  nation  comes  in,  there  will  be  another 
pro  rata  reduction,  and  so  on  down  and  down  until 
finally  a  mere  international  police  maintains  the 
peace  of  the  earth,  under  a  Federal  form  of  govern- 
ment, with  legislative,  judicial  and  executive 
branches. 

This  is  the  theory  of  the  League  of  Peace.  Will 
it  be  brought  about  when  this  war  is  over?  No 
human  being  knows.  But  I  believe  the  theory  is 
sound. 

Let  me  say,  please,  in  conclusion,  that  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  the  destiny  of  the  United  States  to  lead 
in  this  movement.  The  United  States  is  the  world 
in  miniature.  The  United  States  is  a  demonstra- 
tion that  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth  can  live  in  peace 
under  one  form  of  government,  and  its  chief  value 
to  civilization  is  the  demonstration  of  what  this 
form  of  government  is.  The  United  States  itself 
is  the  greatest  League  of  Peace  known  to  history. 
But,  as  our  forefathers,  when  they  formed  our  first 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   37 

confederation  with  its  Continental  Congress  and 
its  Continental  Court,  found  it  hopelessly  inadequate 
for  their  needs,  and  had  to  develop  it  into  the  more 
perfect  union  of  our  present  constitution,  so,  even 
when  we  get  our  League  of  Peace,  it  will  not  be  per- 
fect until  we  go  on  developing  it  to  the  point  where 
the  legislature  has  power  to  make  international  law, 
the  court  has  jurisdiction  over  international  dis- 
putes, and  the  executive  has  power  to  carry  out  the 
decrees  of  the  courts  and  conferences.  Then  we 
shall  have,  in  very  truth,  that  final  world  govern- 
ment which  the  historian  Freeman  has  said,  when 
it  comes  into  existence,  will  constitute  "the  most 
finished  and  the  most  artificial  production  of  politi- 
cal ingenuity." 


THE  OBLIGATION  TO  KEEP  THE  PEACE 
By  The  Honorable  THEODORE   MARBURG 

FORMER  UNITED  STATES  MINISTER  TO  BELGIUM 

The  failure  of  existing  institutions  to  prevent 
war  points  to  the  need  of  sanction.  All  the  present 
Hague  institutions  for  the  settlement  of  inter- 
national disputes  are  voluntary.  Nations  may  or 
may  not  resort  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitra- 
tion, to  the  International  Commission  of  Inquiry,  to 
Mediation  and  Good  Offices,  according  as  they  see  fit. 
-  Many  men  formerly  satisfied  with  these  voluntary 
institutions  now  believe  that  the  element  of  obliga- 
tion must  be  added.  It  is  only  a  question  of  how 
far  they  are  willing  to  go.  Shall  we,  through  the 
united  action  of  the  nations,  forbid  war,  or  should 
we  simply  compel  disputants  to  resort  to  institu- 
tions already  in  existence  or  hereafter  to  be  set  up  in 
the  honest  endeavor  to  compose  their  quarrels  be- 
fore they  are  allowed  to  make  the  appeal  to  arms? 


38   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

On  the  threshold  of  the  inquiry  we  are  met  by  the 
consciousness  that  the  leagues  of  the  past  have  not 
had  signal  success  either  as  instruments  of  justice 
or  as  preventives  of  war.  The  recurrent  meetings 
of  the  Quadruple  Alliance  were  on  the  whole  fruit- 
less. The  Holy  Alliance,  far  from  fulfilling  its 
purpose  of  promoting  the  Christian  religion,  occu- 
pied itself  with  supporting  royal  authority,  notably 
in  Naples  (1821)  and  Hungary  (1849),  and  in  one 
instance,  with  France  as  its  mandatory,  threw  down 
liberal  institutions  (Spain,  1823),  which  the  coun- 
try had  wrung  from  its  reluctant  monarch,  and  re- 
stored despotism. 

The  Concert  of  Europe  has  done  some  creditable 
things.  It  smashed  the  Turkish  fleet  at  Navarino 
in  1827  and  liberated  Greece,  it  has  mitigated  the 
unhappy  lot  of  the  Armenians  in  Turkey.  It  has 
prevented  more  than  one  Balkan  war.  But  how 
many  failures  are  registered  against  it  and  what  dis- 
aster has  overtaken  it  now!  To  the  existence  of 
the  Triple  Alliance  and  Triple  Entente,  formed 
ostensibly  for  peace,  the  very  extent  of  the  present 
cataclysm   is   traceable. 

In  planning  a  new  league  manifestly  a  first  duty 
is  to  ascertain  why  the  leagues  of  the  past  have  failed. 
And  our  search  need  not  carry  us  far  afield. 

We  are  confronted  at  once  with  the  fact  that  each 
of  these  leagues  was  composed  of  a  small  number 
of  powers,  so  small  as  to  permit  of  collusion  to  prey 
upon  nations  outside  the  league,  or  of  the  wilful  tri- 
umph of  selfish  interests  to  the  injury  both  of  its 
other  members  and  of  the  world  at  large. 

Within  the  state  the  cause  of  justice  is  advanced 
under  a  democratic  regime  by  the  play  of  opposing 
interests,  the  interests  of  one  individual  against  the 
interests  of  another  individual,  of  one  class  against 
another  class,  and  by  the  united  thinking  of  the 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   39 

many.  This  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  if  we  can 
set  up  a  league  which  shall  embrace  all  the  pro- 
gressive nations,  big  and  little,  we  may  look  for 
wise  and  just  action  from  it.  But  which  are  the 
progressive  nations?  To  measure  progress  in  terms 
of  numbers — growth  of  population,  yards  of  cotton, 
or  pounds  of  steel — is  to  set  up  a  false  standard. 
True  progress  lies  in  the  growth  of  the  spiritual 
and  intellectual  forces,  of  things  other  than  the 
material,  above  all,  in  growth  of  justice;  justice  of 
man  to  man,  justice  of  employer  to  employee,  justice 
written  in  the  law,  justice  interpreted  by  the  court, 
justice  of  the  state  toward  its  people,  and  justice 
of  nation  to  nation.  No  nation  which  fails  habitually 
to  protect  the  life,  liberty  and  property  of  the  people 
within  its  own  borders  can  bring  strength  to  the 
league.  Persistent  injustice  within  a  state  is  almost 
certain  to  involve  that  state  sooner  or  later  in  for- 
eign war  even  though  it  escape  civil  war.  Injustice 
on  the  part  of  a  league  will  involve  the  league  in  war, 
precisely  as  illegal  and  inhuman  practises  in  the 
conduct  of  war  tend  to  draw  into  the  conflict  an  ever 
wider  circle  of  nations.  Justice  is  the  growing  pur- 
pose of  the  world.  War  is  to  be  condemned  prin- 
cipally because  it  is  a  source  of  such  wholesale  in- 
justice. Justice,  rather  than  the  suppression  of  war, 
is  the  real  end  to  be  sought.  War,  with  all  its  hor- 
rors, is  preferable  to  gross  and  protracted  and  wide- 
spread   injustice. 

The  progressive  nations,  then,  may  be  said  to  be 
those  in  which  there  exists  a  measure  of  good  laws 
fairly  well   administered. 

Specifically,  this  would  give  to  the  league  the 
eight  great  powers — including  the  United  States — 
the  secondary  powers  of  Europe,  and  the  "A  B  C" 
countries  of  South  America.  In  this  group  we  find 
three  great  peoples  with  common  political  aspira- 


40   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

tions,  namely,  those  of  Great  Britain,  France  and  the 
United  States,  peoples  which  no  longer  regard  democ- 
racy as  a  passing  phase  of  political  experiment,  but 
as  a  permanent  fact  of  politics.  We  find  in  it  two 
powerful  nations.  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  which  may  be  said  to  be  satisfied  territorially. 
We  find,  moreover,  a  group  of  smaller  nations  with 
no  disturbing  ambitions. 

It  is  believed  that  if  such  a  league  could  be  formed 
substantial  justice  would  emerge  from  its  united 
action  just  as  under  the  Federal  Government  sub- 
stantial justice  results  tothe  forty-eight  states,  origin- 
ally sovereign  entities,  now  composing  the  American 
Union.  And  unless  justice  results  the  league  can  not 
endure.     Unless  justice  results  we  do  not  want  it. 

Now,  a  desirable  plan  would  embrace  such  a  broad 
league,  a  league  which  should  not  itself  attempt  to 
pronounce  upon  international  disputes  but  would 
refer  the  disputants  to  certain  institutions  for  the 
settlement  of  controversies  and  insist  that  they  may 
not  resort  to  war. 

In  such  a  project  we  find  four  progressive  stages: 

First  Stage.  Institutions  such  as  we  now  have, 
supplemented  by  a  true  court  of  justice,  all  of  which 
institutions  shall  be  purely  voluntary  or  facultative. 

Second  Stage.  The  element  of  obligation  added 
in  so  far  as  the  nations  shall  bind  themselves  to  resort 
to    these    institutions. 

Third  Stage.  The  further  addition  of  an  agree- 
ment to  have  the  league  act  as  an  international 
grand  jury  to  hale  the  nation  law-breaker  into  court 
and  to  use  force  to  bring  it  there  if  recalcitrant. 

Fourth  Stage.  The  final  addition  of  an  agreement 
to  use  force,  if  need  be,  to  execute  the  award  of  the 
tribunal. 

Now,  how  much  of  this  "desirable"  plan  is  a 
"realizable"  project? 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   41 

The  diificulty  that  faces  us  with  regard  to  the  last 
two  steps  is  the  reluctance  of  nations  to  make  the 
surrender  of  sovereignty  and  independence  which 
they  involve.  It  means  that  the  signatories  bind 
themselves  to  make  war,  under  certain  conditions,  in 
the  common  interest.  Can  the  United  States 
Senate  be  brought  to  such  a  view  of  its  duty  to  man- 
kind? The  last  step,  that  of  enforcing  the  award,  in- 
volves likewise  the  danger  of  oppression  unless  the 
league  charged  with  such  a  duty  should  embrace  all 
or  nearly  all  of  the  progressive  nations.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  demand  that  controversies  be  re- 
ferred to  a  tribunal  and  that  the  decision  of  such 
tribunal  be  awaited  before  making  war  involves 
no  danger  of  oppression.  It  is  a  reasonable  de- 
mand. A  project  which  included  bringing  a 
nation  into  the  presence  of  a  tribunal  but  made 
no  attempt  to  execute  the  award  could  therefore 
be  safely  instituted  by  a  league  embracing  all,  or 
nearly  all,  of  the  great  powers  without  awaiting 
the  adherence  of  the  secondary  powers,  though  the 
presence  of  the  latter  would  make  the  league  all 
the  stronger. 

As  the  nation  which  consented  so  to  refer  its  dis- 
putes to  a  tribunal  would  not  be  obliged  either  by  its 
own  promise  or  by  the  will  of  the  league  to  observe 
the  award,  the  proceedings  would  be  much  in  the 
nature  of  a  mere  inquiry.  But  since  publicity  tends 
to  correct  not  only  illegal  practices  but  unjust  ones, 
too,  and  does  it  without  resort  to  a  court  of  law  or 
even  to  a  tribunal  of  arbitration,  it  is  felt  that  in  the 
majority  of  cases  the  controversy  would  be  stilled 
by   investigation   alone. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  plan  here  proposed 
moves  forward  the  present  practice  in  two  particu- 
lars, namely,  in  binding  the  signatories  to  resort  to 
international  institutions  for  the  settlement  of  con- 


42        LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE 

troversies  before  making  war  and  in  compelling  them 
so  to  do  if  recalcitrant. 

This  is  as  far  as  sorrie  men  of  wide  practical  expe- 
rience are  willing  to  go.  They  are  unwilling ,  for 
example,  as  part  of  a  realizable  plan,  to  take  the 
fourth  step,  namely,  bind  the  league  to  enforce  the 
award. 

Moreover,  it  is  felt  that  out  of  the  more  modest 
project  the  greater  project  may  grow,  that  if  nations 
acquire  the  habit  of  submitting  their  controversies 
to  a  tribunal,  presently  the  world  will  become  impa- 
tient of  failure  to  respect  an  award  made  under  such 
conditions. 

The  balance-of-power  theory,  which  has  so  long 
governed  European  politics,  would  fall  before  the 
security  promised  by  a  league,  in  fact  must  fall  if 
the  league  is  to  operate  successfully.  That  theory 
presupposes  rival  nations  or  groups  of  nations  whose 
potential  strength  and  whose  influence,  therefore, 
balance  each  other.  This  can  only  lead  to  the 
formation  of  a  group  outside  the  league  sufficiently 
strong  to  oppose  the  will  of  the  league.  That  spells 
war. 


PROFESSOR  JOHN  BATES  CLARK 

,  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Mr.  President  and  Members  of  the  Conference: 
The  brief  paper  which  1  have  prepared  has  to  do  with 
something  in  the  recent  trend  of  events,  which,  as  I 
think,  is  working  powerfully,  and  even  decisively, 
in  favor  of  a  League  of  Peace. 

The  war  has  converted  the  belligerent  nations  to 
that  kind  of  pacifism  which  consists  in  a  grim  deter- 
mination that  the  present  Armageddon  shall  never 
be  repeated,  however  long  it  may  be  necessary  to 
fight  in  order  to  ensure  this  outcome,    Short  of  a 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   43 

conquest  of  Europe  by  one  power  there  is  only  one 
means  by  which  a  lasting  peace  can  be  secured  and 
that  is  by  such  a  League  of  Nations  as  we  have  as- 
sembled to  discuss.  We  are  confronted,  however, 
by  the  fact  that,  of  the  various  plans  for  such  a 
league,  ranging  from  a  mere  extension  of  treaties  of 
arbitration  and  conciliation  to  a  complete  world  state 
with  a  central  government,  an  army  and  navy,  only 
the  very  modest  plans  seem  to  many  persons  to  be 
practicable  and  those  which  aim  to  accomplish 
the  larger  things  seem  Utopian.  If  the  creation  of 
the  League  depended  entirely  on  the  conscious 
efforts  of  peace-loving  men,  this  would  be  the  cor- 
rect view.  The  first  question  to  be  answered  is 
what  kind  of  union  can  be  secured?  and  in  the  face 
of  all  the  misgivings  which  exist  I  wish  to  express 
the  audacious  opinion  that  something  having  the 
characteristics  of  a  very  effective  league  is  rapidly 
evolving,  that  it  will  have  ample  force  at  its  com- 
mand and  that,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  it  will  prob- 
ably require  only  a  minor  modification  to  enable 
it  to  prevent,  for  an  indefinite  time,  the  recurrence 
of  a  great  war  on  the  Continent  of  Europe.  The 
very  efficiency  of  the  union  and  the  force  it  will  be 
able  in  case  of  necessity  to  use  will  make  it  more 
probable  than  less  probable  that  peoples  generally 
will  favor  it  and  that  governments  will  accept  it. 
It  is  an  ambitious  league  and  not  a  modest  one  which 
natural  forces  are  bringing  for  the  first  time  within 
reach. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  create  a  league  of  peace  de 
novo  and  without  reference  to  combinations  which 
now  exist.  Two  great  leagues  have  been  formed, 
each  embracing  powerful  states  and  each  so  firmly 
held  together  that  it  acts  toward  the  outer  world 
much  as  a  single  great  empire  would  do.  Since 
they  are  now  waging  against  each  other  the  greatest 


44   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

war  in  history,  the  conclusion  is  much  too  lightly 
reached  that  such  unions  are,  by  their  very  nature, 
war-breeders.  Defensive  unions,  however,  are  in 
line  with  the  whole  trend  of  political  evolution. 
Great  states,  created  by  combining  smaller  ones, 
are  in  the  order  of  the  day,  and  they,  as  well  as 
mere  federations,  make  far  more  strongly  for  peace 
than  for  warfare.  Each  consolidated  state  stops 
a  multitude  of  local  conflicts  and  the  peace  between 
it  and  its  great  neighbors  lasts  much  longer  than 
does  that  between  warring  districts  which  later  unite 
in  such  states.  If  peace  shall  ever  become  universal, 
it  will  do  so  by  establishing  itself  within  larger 
and  larger  areas  till  it  shall  end  by  embracing  the 
world.  It  is  an  even  century  since  a  war  akin 
to  this  one  was  waging  in  Europe,  and  if  the  prin- 
ciple of  union  shall  be  made  to  produce  its  natural 
effect,  it  may  perhaps  be  a  series  of  centuries  before 
there  is  another.  To  utilize  the  great  natural  forces 
leading  to  this  result  is  in  the  power  of  the  men  of 
to-day. 

Let  us  assume  as  a  fact,  what  is  at  all  events  pos- 
sible, and  by  most  persons  is  regarded  as  probable, 
namely,  that  the  present  war  has  been  ended  while 
both  the  Entente  and  the  Alliance  continue  to  be 
strong  and  that  in  everything  political  they  are  the 
powers  which  must  first  be  reckoned  with.  Let  us 
assume  that,  in  each  of  them,  the  constituent  coun- 
tries are  held  firmly  together  because  no  single 
country  can  think  of  surrendering  the  protection 
which  union  affords.  Outside  of  the  Entente, 
France  would  be  helpless  against  an  attack  by 
Germany  and  outside  of  the  Alliance,  Austria  would 
be  helpless  against  one  by  Italy  and  Russia.  Any 
country  standing  alone  would  have  a  precarious 
hold  on  its  territory  and  its  freedom. 

The  chief  dangers  that  threaten  a  great  league 


LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE       45 

spring  from  within,  while  those  that  threaten  a  small 
league  are  from  without.  A  union  of  all  Europe 
would  be  entirely  immune  against  foreign  attack 
and,  for  that  very  reason,  would  be  in  great  danger 
of  being  disrupted  and  plunged  into  something  like 
civil  war.  Especially  would  this  be  true  while  the 
suspicions  and  enmities  engendered  by  the  present 
conflict  were  still  continuing.  Such  a  union  as  the 
Alliance  and  the  Entente,  each  of  which  has  a  great 
power  now  arrayed  against  it,  is  held  together  much 
more  firmly.  The  bond  that  unites  its  members 
is  the  imperative  need  of  mutual  protection.  If, 
as  we  have  supposed,  the  war  has  ended  neither  in 
a  draw  nor  in  a  sweeping  victory  for  one  side — if  the 
unsuccessful  league  has  kept  most  of  its  territories 
and  its  fighting  strength — the  bond  that  unites  each 
union  will  be  of  the  strongest.  The  most  vital  of 
interests  will  prevent  the  constituent  states  from 
falling  apart. 

This  situation  will  throw  an  enormous  power  into 
the  hands  of  the  neutral  countries.  Their  adherence 
to  one  of  the  unions  will  be  of  immense  importance  to 
it.  By  joining  either  of  them  they  might  cause  it 
to  preponderate  over  its  rival;  and  by  joining  the 
victorious  one  they  would  make  it  safe  against  any 
attack  and  able,  if  it  were  disposed  to  do  so,  to  guar- 
antee the  peace  of  Europe.  For  the  small  states 
themselves  a  defensive  combination  with  larger  ones 
is  of  even  greater  importance,  and  in  all  of  them  the 
opinion  is  growing  that,  in  their  case,  ''liberty  and 
union  are  one  and  inseparable."  For  their  own  ends 
it  is  becoming  indispensable  to  secure,  by  one  means 
or  another,  the  guaranty  of  their  territory  and  their 
independence  which  only  a  great  league  can  make 
effective.  Their  actual  membership  in  such  a  league 
would  probably  cause  it  to  become,  if  it  were  not 
already,  a  truly  democratic  union  of  nations,  respect- 


46   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

ing  the  rights  of  great  and  small,  and  fully  committed 
to  a  just  and  peaceful  policy. 

In  order  to  be  a  nucleus  of  such  a  commonwealth  a 
league  should,  if  possible,  already  contain  enough 
great  states  to  prevent  any  one  from  dominating  the 
others.  There  should  be  a  certain  balance  of  power 
among  its  leading  members  but,  if  possible,  it  should 
contain  at  the  outset  a  number  of  the  smaller  states 
and,  as  a  group,  it  should  be  so  free  from  aggressive 
designs  as  to  merit  the  confidence  of  states  not  as 
yet  in  any  combination.  Since  the  Entente  now  vir- 
tually includes  five  great  states  and  four  small  ones, 
and  may  soon  be  joined  by  others,  it  already  has  im- 
portant qualifications  for  becoming  such  a  league  of 
peace  as  we  are  suggesting — a  commonwealth  of 
nations  powerful  enough  to  preserve  peace  and  vitally 
interested  in  doing  it.  We  may  use  it,  therefore, 
as  the  most  available  illustration  of  what  is  possible 
in  a  union  of  this  kind. 

The  original  purpose  of  each  of  the  two  leagues 
now  existing  was  protective.  Each  of  them  aimed 
primarily  to  secure  its  members  against  attacks  by 
other  powers,  and  this  security,  which  all  the  present 
members  continue  to  need,  is  what  the  small  neutral 
countries  are  also  compelled  to  look  for.  What  they 
must  demand  of  any  combination  which  they  are 
asked  to  join  is,  above  all  else,  protection. 

Now  the  more  promising  plans  for  new  leagues  of 
peace  which  have  been  suggested  contain  no  provision 
for  protecting  their  members  from  attacks  by  nations 
outside  of  their  circle.  They  content  themselves 
with  preventing  warfare  between  the  members.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  present  militant  combinations 
have  no  formal  and  constitutional  machinery  for 
settling  internal  disputes.  A  true  commonwealth  of 
nations  needs  to  be  assured  against  both  dangers  and 
its  constitution,  therefore,  will  need  to  contain  the 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE-   47 

best  provisions  that  it  is  humanly  possible  to  devise 
both  for  settling  peacefully  all  internal  disputes  and 
for  preventing  or  repelling  attacks  by  other  states. 
This  is  saying  that  an  enlarged  Entente,  besides  pro- 
tecting its  members,  as  it  is  now  fighting  desperately 
to  do,  will  need  to  guard  itself  against  the  perils  that 
necessarily  beset  large  leagues,  those,  namely,  that 
originate  from  within.  The  worst  fate  that  could 
befall  it  would  be  disruption.  The  institutions  of 
the  Hague  will  be  for  it  well  nigh  a  sine  qua  non  of 
success,  and  there  must  be  measures  for  compelling 
a  resort  to  them  in  disputes  between  members  of  the 
league  and  in  those  arising  between  any  of  them  and 
states  outside  of  it.  Such  provisions  as  have  been 
outlined  in  the  brief  and  admirable  plan  which  has 
been  submitted. to  the  members  of  this  Conference 
will  be  imperatively  needed  in  one  that  may  evolve 
out  of  one  of  the  existing  leagues,  hut  in  any  case  the 
protective  function  of  the  existing  militant  unions 
must  continue  to  he  performed.  I  n  order  to  appeal  to 
the  nations  strongly  enough  to  be  created  at  all — in 
order  to  be  efficient  enough  to  seem  to  the  nations 
worth  creating — a  League  of  Peace  must  fulfill  the 
functions  of  the  best  of  the  new  leagues  thus  far  sug- 
gested and  must  add  to  them  the  protective  function 
of  the  leagues  which  now  exist.  There  must  be  a 
potential  militancy  in  its  composition,  though  it  will 
probably  remain  as  nearly  latent  as  it  is  in  any  well 
policed  city.  Pacifism  judicial  plus  pacifism  pro- 
tective equals  pacifism  successful  and  enduring. 
Such  is  one  of  the  major  equations  of  human  destiny 
and  it  is  written  so  deeply  in  the  laws  of  nature  that 
nothing  which  governments  themselves  could  do 
would  materially  change  it. 

If  a  new  league  shall  ever  be  formed  without  afford- 
ing protection  against  external  attacks,  it  will  be  in- 
dispensable that  the  Entente  and  the  Alliance  should 


48   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

continue.  It  would  be  vain  to  ask  their  constituent 
countries  to  dissolve  them  and  trust  to  a  new  league 
that  would  leave  each  of  them  to  fight  its  own  battles. 
How  secure  would  France  or  Italy  be  under  such  a 
condition?  If  the  states  now  in  the  Entente  should 
join  such  a  new  and  non-resistent  league,  their  own 
present  combination  would  remain  and  would  become 
a  union  within  a  union — a  compact  defensive  body 
within  a  loosely  organized  combination  for  promoting 
the  friendly  settlement  of  disputes.  This  is  entirely 
possible.  We  can  have  our  new  Union  and  still 
utilize  the  old  ones.  A  new  league  of  many  states 
might  conceivably  be  formed  and  the  Entente  might 
join  it  bodily  and  continue  to  give  to  its  own  members 
the  protection  which  the  larger  league  would  not  give. 
The  other  alternative  would  be  to  enlarge  the  present 
league  and  insert  in  its  constitution  the  needed  pro- 
visions for  peacefully  settling  all  disputes  of  which 
a  member  is  a  party.  Something  akin  to  this  is  not 
unlikely  spontaneously  to  occur.  The  governments 
in  the  Entente  cannot  be  unaware  of  the  new  force 
which  they  would  thereby  gain. 

Whatever  may  be  said  of  a  league  so  formed,  the 
objection  that  it  is  "theoretical"  or  "utopian"  cer- 
tainly cannot  be  urged.  Neither  the  Alliance  nor  the 
Entente  looks  particularly  Utopian.  Nine  countries 
are  already  in  one  of  these  combinations  and  they  are 
jointly  fulfilling  the  highly  ambitious  function  that, 
in  making  constitutions  for  new  leagues,  few  persons 
are  bold  enough  to  require  of  the  members — that  of 
lavishing  life  and  treasure  in  defending  each  other. 
In  this  respect,  the  present  reality  outstrips  our  for- 
mer dreams.  The  leagues  that  now  exist  have  placed 
us  at  a  halfway  station  on  the  route  to  the  land 
that  we  have  long  seen  as  in  a  vision.  By  the  ex- 
penditure of  more  blood  and  treasure,  at  a  cost  of 
more  human  agony  than  figures  can  measure  or 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   49 

imagination  grasp,  we  have  been  carried  over  the 
more  difficult  part  of  the  route  to  the  land  of  perma- 
nent peace.  If  humanity  is  efficient  enough  to  be 
worth  saving,  it  should  be  able  to  take  the  steps 
that  remain. 

Herein  lies  the  golden  opportunity  for  the  neutral 
states.  They  have  a  sense  of  danger  and  the  protec- 
tive feature  of  a  league  will  attract  them,  though  the 
chance  of  being  involved  in  a  general  war  will,  in 
itself,  repel  them.  It  will  probably  repel  them  less 
than  the  danger  of  being  conquered  by  some  great 
state,  and  both  dangers  will  be  at  a  minimum  if  the 
international  body  that  they  join  is  too  strong  to  be 
attacked  and  if  its  spirit,  as  well  as  its  formal  con- 
stitution and  the  interest  of  its  members,  hold  it  in 
ways  of  justice.  It  will  be  in  the  power  of  the  neutral 
countries  to  act  effectively  in  making  it  so,  since  they 
can  consent  to  join  a  union  only  on  condition  that  it 
shall  have  this  character  stamped  upon  it. 

It  will  be  hard  indeed  for  the  two  leagues  now  in 
deadly  war  with  each  other  at  once  to  unite  in  any 
single  combination.  Will  the  fact  that  one  of  them 
for  a  time  holds  aloof  be  a  source  of  danger?  In  one 
essential  way  it  will  be  a  cause  of  security.  It  is 
sadly  to  be  admitted  that,  in  the  present  moral  status 
of  the  world,  treaties  are  not  bands  of  steel,  and  there 
is  danger  that  they  may  be  broken  when  they  are 
not  buttressed  by  national  interests.  Against  the 
danger  of  disruption  a  defensive  league  which  does 
not  include  all  states  of  Europe  may  be  stronger  than 
one  which  does  so.  The  treaty  that  binds  such  a 
league  together  will  be  powerfully  reinforced  if  all 
the  members  have  a  sense  of  common  danger — a 
sense  of  the  presence  of  a  foe  strong  enough  to  over- 
come any  country  singly.  Pressure  from  without 
means  solidarity  within  and,  while  enmities  are  deep 
and  strong,  a  powerful  and  hostile  nation  might  im- 


50        LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE 

part  to  a  league  more  strength  by  remaining  outside 
of  it  than  by  joining  it  and  bringing  its  enmities 
within  the  circle. 

it  is  because  of  this  fact  that  I  feel  justified  in 
asserting  with  all  the  emphasis  at  my  command  that 
the  complete  crushing  of  one  side  in  this  war  is  not 
necessary  for  permanent  peace  and,  indeed,  is  as  far 
as  possible  from  being  favorable  for  it.  It  may  be 
necessary  that  one  side  should  win  and  that  the  other 
side  should  discover  that  it  cannot  by  any  persistence 
hope  towin;  but  when  so  much  has  been  accomplished, 
a  peace  will  be  within  reach  that  will  be  indefinitely 
firmer  than  any  that  could  be  gained  by  the  annihila- 
tion of  one  of  the  two  powers  now  in  conflict.  If  so 
an  abiding  peace  may  be  had  at  a  much  earlier  date 
than  it  could  if  the  complete  crushing  of  one  power 
were  a  necessary  basis  of  it. 

In  the  long  run,  all  Europe  should  be  consolidated. 
The  chance  that  it  will  become  so  by  a  single  step  is 
small,  and  the  best  practical  beginning  of  a  general 
union  will  be  furnished  by  one  of  the  existing  leagues, 
enlarged  by  the  adherence  of  neutral  countries  and 
fortified  against  the  danger  of  disruption  from  within 
by  the  exposure  of  any  seceding  state  to  the  peril  of 
attacks  from  without.  The  League  may  thrive  on 
external  hostility  until  the  good  time  shall  come  when 
the  desired  system  of  settling  international  disputes 
shall  be  thoroughly  established  and  peace  shall  pre- 
vail by  the  supremacy  of  reason.  Guarding  always 
the  territory  and  protecting  the  sovereignty  of  its 
members  the  league  will  in  the  end  develop  mutual 
interests  so  important  that  a  new  and  powerful  tie 
will  bind  the  countries  together  in  addition  to  the 
bond  furnished  by  the  necessity  for  defense.  That 
necessity  itself  will  grow  less,  armaments  may  then 
be  curtailed  and  the  forces  now  engaged  in  mutual 
destruction  may  become  available  for  raising  in  many 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   51 

ways  the  level  of  human  Hfe.  Under  such  influences 
the  league  should  become  too  powerful  to  be  attacked 
from  without  and  too  indispensable  to  humanity  to 
be  weakened  or  disrupted  from  within. 

Leaving  for  others  the  discussion  of  the  steps  which 
our  Government  may,  at  the  proper  moment,  take, 
I  content  myself  with  showing  what  those  natural 
forces,  which  are  even  stronger  than  governments, 
have  done.  They  have  brought  about  a  condition 
in  which  the  entire  future  of  the  world  bids  fair  to 
be  secure  and  happy,  or  imperilled  and  unhappy, 
according  as  some  efficient  league  of  peace  shall  or 
shall  not  be  created;  secondly,  that  the  neutral  states 
will  have,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  a  rare  opportunity 
to  aid  in  the  creation  of  it;  and,  thirdly,  that  America, 
if  she  remains  neutral,  can  act  concurrently  with  those 
states  and  can  prepare  in  advance  for  such  joint 
action.  With  the  Alliance  and  the  Entente  coatinu- 
ing  and  a  league  of  neutral  countries  existing  the 
situation  will  be  ripe  for  creating  the  type  of  union 
that  shall  have  all  needed  qualities  and  can  give  to 
both  continents  that  lasting  peace  for  the  sake  of 
which  the  countries  of  Europe  are  impoverishing  and 
depopulating  themselves. 

For  these  reasons  1  conclude  that  in  the  leagues 
now  at  war  may  be  found  an  indispensable  element 
of  the  league  of  peace.  There  is  inspiration  in  this 
possibility  and  there  is  a  terrible  spur  to  action  in 
what  will  ensue  if  it  is  not  realized — desolated  lands 
under  enormous  debts  with  no  assurance  against  a 
further  struggle;  neutral  lands  as  well  as  belligerent 
ones  involved  in  the  competition  for  larger  armies, 
navies,  arsenals,  guns  and  fortifications;  the  people 
demanding  costly  reforms  by  governments  unable  to 
afford  them  and  in  peril  of  revolution  if  they  refuse 
to  do  so.  Only  in  the  relief  from  war  and  its  burdens 
lies  the  possibility  of  meeting  such  needs  and  giving 


53        LEAGUE  TO    ENFORCE    PEACE 

to  social  progress  an  upward  trend.  Such  is  the 
plain  teaching  of  the  pending  struggle.  It  is  as 
though  the  war  demon  himself  had  led  humanity  to 
the  parting  of  the  roads  where  the  guide  boards  indi- 
cate, on  the  one  side,  the  long  way  to  the  Delectable 
Mountains  and  on  the  other,  a  short  route  to  the  pit. 
Far  reaching  beyond  all  precedent  is  the  choice  that 
humanity  must  soon  make  and  lands  at  war  and 
lands  at  peace  must  participate  in  the  decision. 

Mr.  EDWARD  A.  FILENE 

VICE-PRESIDENT  OF 
THE  INTERNATIONAL  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen:  1  think  this 
meeting  is  the  high  water  mark  of  practical  progress 
in  this  country  toward  the  goal  of  that  lasting  peace 
for  which  all  the  world  is  hoping.  Our  progress  in 
this  country,  if  it  is  to  be  real  and  practical,  will  not 
come — cannot  come — through  wishes  and  hopes  and 
dreams  as  the  machinery,  but  must  come  through 
our  Senate  and  through  our  President.  In  order 
that  our  Senate  and  our  President  shall  act,  they  must 
have  behind  them,  not  only  good  will,  but  really 
organized  public  opinion. 

It  is  not  possible  to  unite  the  country,  on  the 
whole  mass  of  desirable  things,  on  the  whole  mass  of 
right,  that  ultimately  we  hope  some  future  ages  will 
see. 

With  three  out  of  the  four  propositions  before  this 
Conference,  that  of  the  World  Court  for  justiciable 
cases,  that  of  the  Council  of  Conciliation  for  non- 
justiciable cases,  and  of  some  international  body 
that  shall  make  the  legislation  with  which  the  world 
court  shall  deal  as  international  law,  we  are,  and  1 
think  the  country  as  a  whole  is,  in  accord,  and  those 
working  along  similar  lines  from  the  other  countries 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   53 

are  also  beginning  to  express  themselves  as  in  accord. 

As  a  business  man,  I  am  interested  in  no  propo- 
sitions for  more  lasting  peace  unless  there  is  behind 
them  some  sanction,  some  means  of  enforcement,  and 
the  third  proposition  in  this  program  deals  with  a 
method  of  enforcement,  and  it  says  it  is  to  be  a  mili- 
tary one.  Now  in  the  study  that  I  have  been  able 
to  make,  and  in  my  talk  and  consultation  with  many 
men  in  this  country,  it  has  seemed  that  there  was 
something  to  be  added  to  that. 

In  the  original  article  it  says:  "Third.  That  the 
signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  their  military  force 
to  prevent  any  one  of  their  number  from  going  to 
war,  or  committing  acts  of  hostility,  against  any 
other  of  the  signatories,  before  any  question  arising 
shall  be  submitted  as  provided  in  the  foregoing." 
The  form  which  I  propose  as  a  substitute — and  I 
may  say  that  this  is  a  formula  which  certain  Eu- 
ropean co-workers,  interested  in  achieving  the  same 
thing  as  ourselves,  have  adopted,  and  we  all  hope 
that  eventually  the  European  countries  will  either 
agree  with  us  or  make  us  agree  with  them,  so  that  we 
shall  be  able  to  act  together  upon  the  third  article — 
the  form  which  I  propose  to  substitute  is  as  follows: 

"That  the  signatory  powers  shall  support,  by 
such  concerted  measures,  diplomatic,  economic  and 
military,  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  majority  may 
be  most  effective,  any  one  of  their  number  that  is  at- 
tacked without  previous  submission  of  the  dispute 
to  judgment  or  conciliation,  as  provided  in  the  fore- 
going." 

America  has  it  within  her  power  to  organize  forces 
which  are  greater,  perhaps,  than  battleships  and 
armies.  Please  do  not  misunderstand  me.  I  am 
not  suggesting  that  the  world  can  do  without  arms. 
I  do  not  think  we  can,  any  more  than  we  can  do  with- 
out the  policeman.     But,  just  as  within  the  State 


54   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

there  are  many  things  we  use  besides  the  poHceman, 
and  before  we  use  the  poHceman,  for  the  enforcement 
of  the  law  or  the  execution  of  the  judgments  of  the 
courts,  so  there  are  forces  that  we  can  use  before  we 
employ  our  armies  and  our  navies.  These  forces  can 
be  summarized  in  the  term  "Economic  Pressure," 
by  which  1  mean  the  commercial  and  financial  boy- 
cott of  any  nation  which  goes  to  war  without  sub- 
mitting its  dispute  to  judgment  or  to  inquiry,  and 
that  boycott  could  be  of  a  progressive  severity.  In 
the  first,  and  what  would  probably  be  usually  a  suf- 
ficiently effective  stage,  the  nations  forming  a  league 
for  international  law  and  order  would  refuse  to  buy 
goods  from  or  sell  goods  to  the  offending  nation.  If 
its  off"ense,  however,  were  a  very  grievous  one,  and 
continued  despite  the  first  measures,  so  that  greater 
pressure  were  needed,  the  nations  of  the  League 
would  practically  sever  all  intercourse  with  it  and 
refuse  to  enter  into  financial  or  commercial  transac- 
tions, refuse  to  receive  or  send  its  mail,  or  to  clear 
its  ships.  And  then  only,  finally,  if  such  measures 
were  ineffective,  would  military  force  be  resorted  to. 
But  my  plea  is  that,  in  the  first  instance,  economic 
force  is  clearly  indicated  and  that  military  force 
should  be  resorted  to  only  if  economic  pressure  should 
prove  ineffective.  It  is  the  deterrent  effect  of  organ- 
ized non-intercourse  which  would  make  war  less 
likely,  since  it  would  be  a  terrible  penalty  to  incur, 
and  one  more  difficult,  in  a  sense,  to  fight  against 
than  military  measures.  Furthermore,  its  system- 
atic organization  would  tend  to  make  any  subse- 
quent military  action  by  the  League  more  efi'ective. 
Many  States  that,  for  various  reasons,  might  not  be 
able  to  co-operate  with  military  force,  can  co-operate 
with  their  economic  force,  and  so  render  the  action 
against  the  offending  State  more  effective,  and  that, 
in  the  end,  would  be  more  humane. 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   55 

It  is  also  argued  that  it  is  a  two-edged  weapon, 
likely  to  injure  ourselves  as  much  as  the  nation  at 
whom  it  may  be  aimed — that,  in  other  words,  it  is 
costly.  Well,  is  not  all  punishment  costly?  Are 
judicial  systems  and  our  prisons  maintained  for 
nothing?  And  is  not  war  also  an  instrument  which 
is  costly  and  which  injures  ourselves?  Is  not  the 
whole  system  of  peace  within  the  State  based  on  the 
principle  that  we  are  prepared  to  pay  for  the  pre- 
vention of  law-breaking?  Moreover  I  would  point 
out  that  a  league  like  this  implies  that  the  coercing 
members  shall  outweigh  the  members  to  be  coerced. 
It  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  lawbreaker 
will  be  in  the  minority,  or  will  be  inferior  in  strength. 
In  that  case  a  principle  like  non-intercourse  would 
not  weigh  so  heavily  upon  the  party  inflicting  the 
pressure,  because  the  burden  would  be  distributed 
over  more  backs. 

Another  objection  is  that  it  will  bear  with  undue 
hardship  upon  individuals  of  special  trades  and  in- 
dustries. Well,  again,  so  does  war.  But  I  think 
on  the  whole  it  would  be  easier  to  prevent  that  special 
distress  in  the  case  of  non-intercourse  than  in  the  case 
of  war.  The  experience  of  the  combatants  in  the 
present  war  is  particularly  enlightening  on  this  point. 
On  the  morrow  of  the  declaration  of  war,  many  credit 
institutions  in  London — and  the  same  thing  is  true 
of  Berlin — found  themselves  threatened  with  what 
would  have  been,  in  the  absence  of  special  measures, 
absolute  ruin.  But  especial  measures  were  taken, 
and  the  Government  successfully  used  its  power  to 
prevent  all  the  effects  of  the  war  falling  upon  any 
one  class  in  the  community. 

A  further  objection  is  that  in  the  past  embargoes 
have  not  been  effective,  and  in  support  of  this  the 
Berlin  and  Milan  Decrees  of  the  Napoleonic  Wars 
are  generally  cited.     But  surely  this  does  not  take 


56   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

into  account  the  immense  difTerences  in  the  char- 
acter and  importance  of  international  intercourse 
at  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century  and  at  the 
opening  of  the  twentieth  century.  Take  a  single 
thing  as  illustrating  it — the  amount  of  mail  handled 
in  1813  and  the  amount  handled  in  191 3.  There 
was  nothing  vital  in  international  intercourse  one 
hundred  years  ago.  When  it  took  six  weeks  at 
least  for  Paris  to  communicate  with  Washington, 
the  effect  of  isolating  a  capital  for  a  few  weeks  was 
simply  not  felt.  But  the  sudden  isolation  of  the 
capitals  of  Europe,  in  August,  191 4,  compelled  every 
government  concerned  to  take  extraordinary  and 
exhaustive  measures  immediately,  by  re-organizing 
their  whole  commercial  and  financial  life.  The  effect 
did  not  trickle  down  through  weeks  or  months,  as  it 
did  a  hundred  years  ago.  It  was  felt,  and  felt  in- 
stantaneously   and    disastrously. 

Of  course,  these  forces  will  need  efficient  organi- 
zation, and  surely,  of  all  the  nations  in  the  world, 
it  is  this  nation  which  is  most  fitted  by  its  circum- 
stances to  lead  the  way  in  the  development  of  in- 
ternational relations.  If  this  country  could,  during 
the  course  of  the  war,  secure  agreements  with  the 
nations  of  South  America,  and  possibly  other  neu- 
tral States,  you  would  then  have  the  nucleus,  the 
first  grouping,  commanding  resources  so  vast  as  to 
carry  immense  weight  with  the  world  at  that  time. 

1  believe  that  the  movement  toward  national 
agreement  in  our  own  country  can  best  be  begun 
by  the  groups  represented  at  this  meeting.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  proposal  of  economic  pressure  may 
form  the  pivot  of  such  an  agreement,  for  this  reason : 
it  is  evident  that  in  any  international  arrangements 
for  the  future,  we  must  have  some  means  for  com- 
pelling observance  of  them.  Many  see  very  great, 
if  not  insuperable,  difficulties  to  the  creation  of  an 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   57 

international  police  force.  Many  of  the  objections 
raised  to  that  form  of  compulsion  would  not  be  appli- 
cable to  the  one  under  discussion,  and  there  are  very 
few  indeed  who  would  object  to  the  employment 
of  military  force,  if  the  preliminary  method  of  econo- 
mic pressure  had  been  first  applied.  Thus  many 
difficulties  which  have  stood  in  the  way  of  unifying 
national  opinion  in  this  matter  are  surmounted, 
and  the  unification  of  public  opinion  on  this  matter 
is  essential  to  success. 

The  present  situation,  in  conclusion,  compels  an 
attention  on  the  part  of  our  nation  to  international 
affairs  that  it  has  never  before  been  compelled  in 
any  insistent  way  to  give  to  them.  This  is  evi- 
denced by  the  present  crisis.  I  think  that  the  pro- 
posals that  have  been  presented  to  us  all  so  well  dur- 
ing this  meeting  can  be  tested  in  the  crisis  that  we 
are  facing.  The  American  Government  may  by  its 
action  within  the  next  few  days  or  weeks  determine 
the  kind  of  settlement  that  Europe  will  have  after 
the  war — a  settlement  so  fundamentally  important 
to  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  United  States. 
If  America  stands  now  for  the  rights  of  our  citizens 
on  the  high  seas,  she  will  help  to  give  the  world  a 
sound  peace,  for  her  rights  can  only  be  finally  vin- 
dicated, first,  by  a  drastic  reform  of  sea  law,  which 
means  co-operating  with  other  nations  in  creating 
a  legislative  body  to  frame  agreements  on  such  law; 
second,  by  a  just  interpretation  of  this  sea  law, 
which  means  an  international  court;  and  third,  by 
some  method  of  compelling  respect  for  the  court's 
decision,  which  means  finding  something  better  as  a 
way  of  enforcing  international  law  than  taking  sides 
in  a  war  in  which  both  sides  may  be  violating  the 
law.  The  United  States  can  find  that  method  by 
properly  organizing  in  advance  economic  pressure, 
some  form  of  non-intercourse  or  international  boy- 


58   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

cott,  against  a  law-breaking  nation.  For  these 
things  we  must  stand  if  we  would  preserve  our  own 
respect,  our  own  interests,  and  those  of  the  civiHzed 
world. 


REPORT  OF  COMMITTEE  ON  RESOLUTIONS 

A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL,  CHAIRMAN 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen:  The  Com- 
mittee has  considered  carefully  the  suggestions 
which  were  submitted  to  it,  and  has  made  a  number 
of  changes  to  meet  the  suggestions  which  have  been 
made.  I  should  like  to  read  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee, which,  1  will  say,  Mr.  President,  is  unani- 
,mous,  although  there  were  differences  of  opinion  very 
strongly  represented  in  the  Committee,  which  to 
some  extent  resulted  in  compromises,  on  which  we 
unanimously  agree.  I  will  explain  the  changes  as  1 
read  them. 

The  first  of  these  resolutions,  as  originally  pre- 
pared, stated: 

It  is  desirable  for  the  United  States  to  join  a  league 
of  all  the  great  nations,  binding  the  signatories  to  the 
following. 

Objection  was  raised  from  several  quarters, 
both  directly  here  and  indirectly  outside,  that 
this  looked  as  if  it  was  to  be  a  combination 
only  of  great  nations,  from  which  those  which 
were  not  of  the  same  magnitude  should  be  ex- 
cluded. That,  of  course,  never  was  the  inten- 
tion. The  "great  nations"  was  put  in  really, 
as  I  remember  the  original  drafting,  as  a  beginning 
only,  but,  finding  that  the  expression  conveyed  the 
idea  that  it  was  to  be  limited  finally  to  the  great 
nations,  we  have  concluded  to  leave  out  the  words 
"all  the  great,"  so  that  it  will  read:  //  is  desirable 


LEAGUE   TO    ENFORCE    PEACE        59 

for  the  United  States  to  join  a  league  of  nations, 
binding  the  signatories  to  the  following,  prescribing 
not  at  all  which  the  nations  shall  be,  but  leaving  that 
to  be  settled  when  any  such  league  is  formed,  our 
idea  being  merely  to  present  a  general  plan,  leaving 
the  details  to  be  worked  out  later. 
Then  the  next  clause: 

All  justiciable  questions  arising  between  the  signatory 
powers,  not  settled  by  negotiations,  shall,  subject  to  the 
limitations  of  treaties,  be  submitted  to  a  judicial  tribu- 
nal for  hearing  and  judgment,  both  upon  the  merits  and 
upon  any  issue  as  to  its  jurisdiction  of  the  question. 

The  words  "subject  to  the  limitation  of  treaties" 
were  introduced  to  meet  Mr.  Foulke's  objection, 
which  the  Committee  thought  entirely  sound.  That 
is  the  objection  that  the  court  might  have  jurisdiction 
to  hold  something  as  a  justiciable  question  in  spite 
of  any  treaty  provision  to  the  contrary.  We  had 
no  intention  of  defining  what  "justiciable"  means  in 
a  short  statement  of  objects  of  this  kind,  although,  of 
course,  "justiciable"  ought  to  be  defined  carefully 
in  any  treaty  which  should  embody  such  a  league. 

Then,  owing  to  a  fear  that  there  might  be  some 
questions,  which  were  justiciable  in  their  nature, 
but  not  to  be  submitted,  removed  from  the  tribunal 
by  treaty,  and  yet  which  would  not  for  that  reason 
come  under  the  head  of  non-justiciable  questions, 
we  substituted  in  the  second  resolution  for  "  all  non- 
justiciable," "all  other  questions,"  so  that  all  ques- 
tions would  be  covered  either  before  the  tribunal  or 
before  the  Council  of  Conciliation,  so  that  the  second 
resolution  reads: 

All  other  questions  arising  between  the  signatories, 
and  not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall  be  submitted  to  a 
Council  of  Conciliation  for  hearing,  consideration  and 
recommendation. 


6o   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

The  crux  of  the  whole  matter  is,  of  course,  con- 
tained in  the  third  article,  and  there  we  have  at- 
tempted to  take  into  account  the  suggestions  that 
were  made  to  us  from  the  side  of  the  commer- 
cial organizations.  We  feel  very  strongly  that 
the  all-value  and  essence  of  the  proposition  is  that 
any  nation  that  proposes  to  use  force  upon  an- 
other, that  proposes  to  go  to  war  with  another, 
shall  know  what  consequences  that  action  will 
entail — that  it  will  entail  an  immediate  punish- 
ment by  all  the  civilized  nations  who  join  the  League; 
that  it  shall  not  be  followed  simply  by  a  con- 
ference of  powers  to  decide  what  shall  be  done,  for 
we  all  know  very  well  that  a  conference  of  powers 
does  little  or  nothing,  and  that  the  fear  of  their  so 
doing  is  slight,  but  that  they  shall  agree  that  they  will 
act  at  once  when  acts  of  hostility  are  committed,  or 
war  declared,  by  one  nation  upon  another.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  representatives  of  the  commercial 
bodies  have  said  to  us  that  they  believe  that  econ- 
omic pressure  could  be  applied  in  addition  to  military 
pressure,  and  that  it  would  have  a  more  rapid  effect 
and  should  be  added  to  the  military  pressure.  We, 
therefore,  agreed  unanimously  upon  this  form: 
"The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  forthwith 
both  their  economic  and  military  forces."  And 
then,  Mr.  President,  we  have  made  another  change 
there.  We  had  originally  said :  "  To  prevent  any  one 
of  their  number."  It  looked  as  if  that  intended  to 
ask  the  signatory  powers  to  declare  war  on  a  coun- 
try which  was  proposing  to  commit  acts  of  hostility, 
before  she  actually  committed  them,  and  to  go  to 
war  to  prevent  war.  Of  course,  that  is  not  what 
we  meant.  What  we  meant  was  that,  if  she  com- 
mitted acts  of  hostility,  the  punishment  would 
come.  Therefore,  we  have  changed  that,  so  that 
it  reads: 


LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE   6i 

The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  forthwith  both 
their  economic  and  military  forces  against  any  one  of 
their  number  that  goes  to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hos- 
tility, against  another  of  the  signatories  before  any  ques- 
tion arising  shall  be  submitted  as  provided  in  the  foregoing. 

We  had  one  suggestion  there  which  we,  on  con- 
sideration and  after  considerable  doubt,  thought  it 
was  unwise  to  accept.  It  was  suggested  that  we 
should  not  only  use  this  force  against  any  member 
of  the  League  that  committed  hostilities,  but  against 
any  nation  outside  of  the  League  that  committed 
hostilities  upon  a  member  of  the  League.  No  doubt 
that  would  be  a  desirable  thing,  but  there  is  one  very 
serious  difficulty  that  one  encounters  thereby.  Sup- 
pose at  the  outset  the  only  countries  willing  to  join 
this  League  were  the  United  States,  England  and 
France.  Leaving  it  as  we  are  now,  that  any  act 
committed  by  one  of  the  signatories  upon  another 
shall  involve  the  action  of  all,  it  would  merely  practi- 
cally amount  to  a  League  of  Peace  between  England, 
France  and  America,  preventing  any  one  of  those 
countries  from  going  to  war  with  another,  and  it 
would  have  no  further  effect.  In  so  far,  it  would 
be  beneficial,  but  would  not  establish  world  peace. 
But,  so  far  as  it  went,  it  would  have  a  tendency  to  pre- 
vent war  between  the  nations  so  signing  the  same. 
It  would  mean  that  no  one  of  those  three  could  go 
to  war  with  any  other  of  the  three  without  sub- 
mitting to  arbitration  first,  subject  to  the  penalty  of 
having  the  other  one  join  the  enemy.  It  would  be 
a  League  of  Peace  among  those  three.  But  if  we 
put  in  the  provision,  beyond  that,  that  we  agree  to 
attack  any  outside  nation,  it  would  mean  that  if 
Germany,  Austria  and  Russia  should  attack  France, 
we  should  be  bound  to  go  in.  We  could  not,  under 
those  circumstances,  advise  our  Government  to  go 
in.      Therefore,  if  you  put  in  a  clause  to  the  effect 


62   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

that  you  also  agree  to  declare  war  if  any  nation  out- 
side of  the  League  goes  in  and  attacks  any  member 
inside  the  League,  it  could  be  adopted  practically 
only  in  case  the  League  virtually  included  all  the 
great  powers  of  the  world,  so  that  those  countries 
included  were  in  force  far  overwhelming  above  those 
which  stayed  outside.  We  thought  that,  as  we  do 
not  know  how  far  this  may  go,  what  countries  would 
at  the  outset  be  willing  to  join  it,  it  was  wise  to 
confine  it  in  the  first  place  to  defense  against 
other  members  of  the  League,  believing  that  that 
very  fact  would  have  a  tendency  to  bring  other 
nations  in. 
Then  the  fourth  resolution  remains  unchanged: 

Conferences  between  the  signatory  powers  shall  be 
held  from  time  to  time  to  formulate  and  codify  rules  of 
international  law,  which,  unless  some  signatory  shall 
signify  its  dissent  within  a  stated  period,  shall  thereafter 
govern  the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Tribunal  mentioned  in 
Article  One. 

The  preamble,  which  is  a  statement  of  our  reasons 
for  acting,  I  will  read.     It  is  as  follows. 

(See  "Warrant  from  History,"  page  3.) 

Let  me  add  one  more  word,  to  wit,  the  name  of  the 
League.  The  name  "League  of  Peace,"  has 
raised  doubts  in  some  people's  minds,  because  it 
seems  to  imply  merely  an  aspiration  for  peace,  where- 
as we  mean  by  this  League  something  more;  and, 
after  discussing  the  various  names  suggested,  we 
agreed  to  call  it  "League  to  Enforce  Peace,"  and 
to  call  this  organization  the  American  Branch,  hop- 
ing and  expecting  that  branches  will  be  formed  in 
other  countries. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  in  the  name  of  the  Committee 
on  Resolutions,  I  move  the  adoption  of  these  reso- 
lutions. 


LEAGUE  TO    ENFORCE    PEACE        63 

CLOSING  REMARKS  OF  THE  CHAIRMAN, 
The  Hon.  WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT 

The  Chairman:  I  am  going  to  call  Mr.  John 
Bassett  Moore  to  the  chair.  Unfortunately,  I 
have  an  imperative  engagement  that  takes  me  away 
at  four  o'clock,  and  I  would  be  glad  to  have  just  one 
word  before  1  go.  Mr.  Moore,  will  you  be  good 
enough  to  take  the  chair? 

Mr.  Taft :  Mr.  Chairman :  I  only  want  to  appeal 
to  the  meeting  to  make  some  effective  result,  so 
that  when  people  consider  it,  they  will  think  we 
have  done  something;  that  we  shall  not  leave  a 
place  open  for  doubt,  but  that  we  shall  be  able  to 
say  "We  have  agreed  on  something  definite,  that 
indicates  that  we  are  in  favor  of  doing  something, 
and  not  thinking  something,  and  not  praying  for 
something."  I  am  in  favor  of  praying  for  peace 
just  as  hard  as  we  can,  but  1  am  also  in  favor  of  doing 
the  best  we  can  by  propositions  that  will  support 
that  prayer. 

I  am  very  sorry  to  have  to  go,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
I  wish  I  could  stay  longer.  I  think  we  have  reason 
to  felicitate  ourselves  on  the  great  gathering  that 
we  have  had  of  influential  men.  We  certainly  have 
reason  to  felicitate  ourselves  on  the  warm  welcome 
that  we  have  received  from  this  City  of  Brotherly 
Love,  and  we  ought  to  hope  and  pray  that  out  of 
this  historic  mansion  may  come  a  message  that 
shall  again  help  the  world.    Good-bye. 


PERMANENT  ORGANIZATION 

SUPPLEMENTARY  RESOLUTIONS 

Dr.  Lowell:  I  want  to  move  one  to  two  sup- 
plementary resolutions.  One  is  that  our  President, 
Vice-presidents  and  Executive  Committee  be  made 


64   LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

permanent,  and  that  the  Executive  Committee  be 
requested  to  consider  and  take  all  proper  means  for 
promoting  the  business  of  this  Conference.  There 
have  been  various  propositions  made  and  sent  into 
it,  such  as  the  communication  to  the  President,  etc., 
all  of  which  I  think  require  very  careful  consideration, 
and  would  be  more  properly  done  by  our  Executive 
Committee  than  by  this  body.  I  want,  therefore, 
if  you  please,  sir,  to  make  that  motion. 
Motion  seconded. 

A  Member:  I  should  like  to  ask  a  question, 
whether  this  includes  the  power  on  the  part  of  the 
Executive  Committee  to  call  this  conference  together 
again. 

Dr.  Lowell:  Oh,  certainly,  sir,  aryd  to  add  any 
members  it  pleases.  1  take  it  that  an  organization 
of  this  kind  must  be  managed  by  a  comparatively 
small  body,  and  1  meant  to  add,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
all  the  members  who  have  accepted  invitations  to 
this  Conference  should  be  considered  permanent 
members  of  the  League,  unless  they  desire  not  to. 

Henry  St.  George  Tucker,  Virginia:  Do  you 
mean  that  the  President,  Vice-presidents  and  Ex- 
ecutive Committee  are  to  hold  office  for  life? 

Dr.  Lowell:  Until  they  call  a  conference  to- 
gether, and  of  course  they  will  call  a  conference  to- 
gether; but  1  think  it  is  undesirable  to  provide  for 
annual  meetings.  1  think  we  had  better  leave  it 
to  the  Executive  Committee,  when  in  their  judg- 
ment it  is  wise  to  hold  such  conferences. 

The  Chairman:  I  will  put  the  question  on  the 
motion  that  the  President,  Vice-presidents  and 
Executive  Committee  be  made  permanent  and  be 
authorized  to  take  such  measures  as  may  seem  to 
them  to  be  desirable  to  carry  into  effect  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  Conference. 

(The  motion  was  put  and  carried.) 


OFFICERS  AND  COMMITTEES  OF  tHE 
LEAGVEJi-'O-'iNiA 

William  Howard  Taft,  President 
Vice-Presidents  (see  page  vii) 


EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 
*A.  Lawrence  Lowell,  Chairman 

*Hamilton  Holt  *Theodore  Marburg 

Vice-Chairmen 

*JoHN  Bates  Clark  William  Hodges  Mann 

Jacob  M.  Dickinson  *Alton  B.  Parker 
Samuel  J.  Elder  Leo  S.  Rowe 

Phillip  H.  Gadsden  *William  H.  Short 
John  Hays  Hammond  John  A.  Stewart 

*Herbert  S.  Houston  *Oscar  S.  Straus 
William  B.  Howland  Frank  S.  Streeter 

•Darwin  P.  Kingsley  Thomas  Raeburn  White 

*WiLLiAM  Howard  Taft,  Ex-Officio 

•Members  of  the  Committee  of  Management 


COMMITTEE  ON  HOME  ORGANIZATION 
Alton  B.  Parker,  Chairman 

COMMITTEE  ON  FOREIGN  ORGANIZATION 
Theodore  Marburg,  Chairman 

COMMITTEE  ON   INFORMATION 
Herbert  S.  Houston,  Chairman 

FINANCE  COMMITTEE 
Darwin  P.  Kingsley,  Chairman 


Herbert  S.  Houston,  Treasurer  William  H.  Short,  Secretary 
1 1  West  32nd  Street  507  Fifth  Avenue 

New  York  New  York 

6^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


NOV  111918 

MAY    20  1932 


50m-7,'16 


^^ 

312764 

.  \       /  - 

•'  / 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 

